[R-sig-ME] Increasing iteration limit / lmer bug
bolker at ufl.edu
Thu Apr 1 05:15:49 CEST 2010
Furthermore, I think the patch has already been incorporated in the
development (r-forge) version.
and see if that makes a difference.
Luca Borger wrote:
> this same issue has been reported quite recently (29 March 2010), Ben Bolker
> found that there is indeed a bug and provided also a fix for it. Here is the
> link to the mail archives:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Adam D. I. Kramer" <adik at ilovebacon.org>
> To: <r-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 8:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [R-sig-ME] Increasing iteration limit / lmer bug
>> With apologies, after a lot of grepping around and reading pages on the
>> internet, yes, as you expected, my model is to blame.
>> That said, I think that it is quite appropriate for commands listed in the
>> ?help page to actually work or do what they say--in the below case, it is
>> clear that maxIter is being ignored.
>> If it is the case that a "valid" or "good" or "non-stupid" model will
>> be fit with maxIter=300 and maxFN=900, then there is no reason to allow
>> users to think they have changed this value when they have not.
>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Adam D. I. Kramer wrote:
>>> Dear colleagues,
>>> I am attempting to fit a model in this manner:
>>> l3 <- glmer(mug ~ condition*time +
>>> ...the model fails to fit, however, noting:
>>> In mer_finalize(ans) : iteration limit reached without convergence (9)
>>> ...so, of course, I read the man page for glmer and added
>>> control=list(maxIter=3000). However, the program ran for the same amount
>>> time (about 10 minutes) and produced the same error (and, incidentally,
>>> same output).
>>> So, I believe there to be a bug in glmer such that maxIter is not
>>> I then upped maxFN, too, (also to 3000) in case that was the problem, but
>>> found no meaningful difference in the model produced or the time taken to
>>> fit the model.
>>> Could somebody recommend a workaround? I would like to fit this model.
>>> (running R 2.10.1, lme4 v. 0.999375-32)
>>> Also, in case it matters, 'time' here is a categorical variable
>>> reperesenting several within-subjects timepoints--there are some other
>>> (unanswered) posts to this list in which people appear to have fairly
>>> complex within-subjects effects. Perhaps the issue is that the defaults
>>> which are in place are insufficiently high for moderately complex
>>> within-subjects models?
>>> Adam D. I. Kramer
>>> R-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org mailing list
>> R-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org mailing list
> R-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org mailing list
Associate professor, Biology Dep't, Univ. of Florida
bolker at ufl.edu / people.biology.ufl.edu/bolker
GPG key: people.biology.ufl.edu/bolker/benbolker-publickey.asc
More information about the R-sig-mixed-models