glmer and influence.me - complaining about nAGQ==0
On 24/4/21 11:08 pm, Ben Bolker wrote:
?? Don't have much to add to John's comments. You can see
vignette("lmerperf") for a few suggestions on improving performance.
? I'm a little surprised that your response variable is "logRT" *and*
you have a log-link; that seems like double-logging?? (I was going to
suggest that if you aren't wedded to the Gamma model, a log-Normal model
(lmer(log(logRT) ~ ...) would probably be a lot faster ...)
Are you (C?tia) basing this model off the Lo and Andrews paper? I'm not sure I really agree with that paper -- they seem very worried about transformations, but then they use alternative error distributions and links, which doesn't help interpretation for many users in my experience.
? It's possible that other platforms (glmmTMB, Julia::MixedModels.jl) would be faster ... but then you might be stuck without influence diagnostics again ...
We don't have influence currently implemented in MixedModels.jl, but that wouldn't actually be hard. The bigger issue is that GLMMs with a dispersion parameter, including Gamma, don't currently work in MixedModels.jl