[R-sig-eco] MuMIn package, Inquiry on summary output _ Conditional or Full average models?
Laura Riggi
laura.riggi at slu.se
Sun Feb 14 16:02:48 CET 2016
Dear all,
I have a question regarding the output for model averaging in R with MuMin package. In the summary for model averaging two models of coefficient calculations come out: the "full average" and the "conditional (or subset) average" model (example of output below).
As explained on the MuMin package pdf:
"The 'subset' (or 'conditional') average only averages over the models where the parameter appears. An alternative, the 'full' average assumes that a variable is included in every model, but in some models the corresponding coefficient (and its respective variance) is set to zero. Unlike the 'subset average', it does not have a tendency of biasing the value away from zero. The 'full' average is a type of shrinkage estimator and for variables with a weak relationship to the response they are smaller than 'subset' estimators."
However, I cannot find information online concerning the theory behind these different outputs. I am not sure what is the point of having a "conditional" model as it seems to go against the idea of doing a model averaging analysis.
Do you know of articles / books that discuss this? When should we use one or the other?
Any advice would be appreciated.
> summary(model.avg(dd, subset = delta < 2))
Call:
model.avg.model.selection(object = dd, subset = delta < 2)
Component model call:
lme.formula(fixed = log(Parasitoi_S1.S2 + 1) ~ <8 unique rhs>, data = data, random = ~1 | Field.x/Site.x, method
= ML, na.action = na.fail)
Component models:
df logLik AICc delta weight
1345 8 -161.74 340.52 0.00 0.22
345 7 -162.97 340.74 0.22 0.19
12345 9 -161.26 341.82 1.31 0.11
13456 9 -161.36 342.03 1.51 0.10
2345 8 -162.53 342.10 1.58 0.10
3456 8 -162.54 342.11 1.60 0.10
35 6 -164.76 342.12 1.60 0.10
145 7 -163.84 342.47 1.96 0.08
Term codes:
L OSR2012_X500 OSR2013_X500 Weed.cover Wood_X500 Weed.cover:Wood_X500
1 2 3 4 5 6
Model-averaged coefficients:
(full average)
Estimate Std. Error Adjusted SE z value Pr(>|z|)
(Intercept) 2.5693356 0.5295081 0.5337822 4.813 1.5e-06 ***
L -0.0005893 0.0007720 0.0007756 0.760 0.447
OSR2013_X500 -3.7932641 2.1558940 2.3307509 1.627 0.104
Weed.cover 0.1331237 0.0915813 0.0922877 1.442 0.149
Wood_X500 -5.5516524 3.2502461 3.5300659 1.573 0.116
OSR2012_X500 0.4326628 1.3007077 1.3966718 0.310 0.757
Weed.cover:Wood_X500 0.1922066 0.6215019 0.6255589 0.307 0.759
(conditional average)
Estimate Std. Error Adjusted SE z value Pr(>|z|)
(Intercept) 2.5693356 0.5295081 0.5337822 4.813 1.5e-06 ***
L -0.0011489 0.0007205 0.0007279 1.578 0.1145
OSR2013_X500 -4.1301091 1.9155698 2.1268744 1.942 0.0522 .
Weed.cover 0.1474601 0.0847131 0.0855581 1.724 0.0848 .
Wood_X500 -5.5516524 3.2502461 3.5300659 1.573 0.1158
OSR2012_X500 2.0508163 2.1681256 2.4346913 0.842 0.3996
Weed.cover:Wood_X500 0.9639767 1.0923693 1.1039224 0.873 0.3825
---
Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
Relative variable importance:
Wood_X500 OSR2013_X500 Weed.cover L OSR2012_X500 Weed.cover:Wood_X500
Importance: 1.00 0.92 0.90 0.51 0.21 0.20
N containing models: 8 7 7 4 2 2
Thank you for your help.
Kind Regards,
Laura
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
More information about the R-sig-ecology
mailing list