poor convergence due to problematic data? multinomial MCMCglmm model

Mon, Jun 27, 2022 12:43 PM

One thing you can do is increase your burn-in time to at least 5*10^5.
Right now you have it at 2000 for a 5000000 iterations which is quite
short. And of course like you mentioned the issue with polygyny is the lack
of representation in the datatset

Walid Mawass

On Mon, Jun 27, 2022, 2:55 PM Jose Valdebenito Chavez via

R-sig-mixed-models <r-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org> wrote:

Hi,

I am having problems with MCMCglmm models trying to describe drug
resistance in birds.

Response variable: present/absence of drug resistance. That is
cbind(all.present, all.absent) which will be e.g.  Anas crecca = 4, 1.
Explanatory variable: mating system, categorical with two levels
(monogamy, polygyny)
Number of species (and number of rows): 31
Actual number of individuals birds examined: 711


The Model:

prior=list(R = list(V = diag(1), nu = 0.02),
               G = list(G1 = list(V = diag(1), nu = 2, alpha.mu = c(0),
alpha.V = diag(1))))

mp3 <- MCMCglmm(cbind(all.present, all.absent) ~ msys,
                random=~species,
                ginverse=list(species=inv.phylo$Ainv),
                prior=prior,
                family = "multinomial2",
                data = data,
                nitt=5002000,burnin=2000,thin=5000)

The Outcome:

Iterations = 2001:4997001
Thinning interval  = 5000
Sample size  = 1000
DIC: 172.8442

G-structure:  ~species
              post.mean     l-95% CI     u-95% CI   eff.samp
species       2.065.      2.773e-06       8.973       1000

R-structure:  ~units
              post.mean.  l-95% CI     u-95% CI   eff.samp
units         4.189.        0.004191    12.83          1000

Location effects: cbind(all.present, all.absent) ~ msys
                      post.mean l-95% CI u-95% CI       eff.samp  pMCMC
(Intercept)            4.166      2.174        6.947        939.42
 0.002 **
msyspolygyny   434.100   63.507    702.711           26.66    <0.001 ***
---
Signif. codes:  0 ?***? 0.001 ?**? 0.01 ?*? 0.05 ?.? 0.1 ? ? 1


By the outcome and trace plots the model seems fine except for
msyspolygyny, and I haven?t been able to correct the issue so far.
Increasing nitt to 5002000 improved the autocorrelation a bit but still
far from good.

diag(autocorr(mp3$Sol)[2, , ])
 (Intercept)   msyspolygyny
0.01511989    0.94800971

Convergence for polygyny is, not surprisingly, bad.

gelman.diag(mcmc.list(mp3$Sol, mp3b$Sol))
Potential scale reduction factors:

                        Point est. Upper C.I.
(Intercept)           0.999       1.00
msyspolygyny     1.357       2.11

Multivariate psrf
1.23

Then I checked and I realised that the problem is likely to originate from
the data itself that has just 3 species with a polygynous mating system,
out of 31.

Is there a way to improve the autocorrelation/convergence? Run it for even
longer? Maybe by specifying a prior able to handle it?

Thanks,
Jose



-------------------------

Jos? O. Valdebenito


        [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

_______________________________________________
R-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mixed-models

poor convergence due to problematic data? multinomial MCMCglmm model

Thread (2 messages)