[R-sig-ME] lme4.0

[Viechtbauer Wolfgang (STAT)]

Thank you for the feedback. It's good to have a better idea where things stand.

One argument in favor of lme4.0:

In the metafor package, I use lme4 to fit a particular Poisson/logistic mixed-effects model that involves a nonscalar random effects term. In lme4.0, this could be fitted with nAGQ > 1. In lme4 (1.0.x), this is (currently) not possible (only nAGQ=1, i.e., Laplace approximation). See also:

https://mailman.stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-sig-mixed-models/2013q3/020556.html

Best,
Wolfgang

--   
Wolfgang Viechtbauer, Ph.D., Statistician   
Department of Psychiatry and Psychology   
School for Mental Health and Neuroscience   
Faculty of Health, Medicine, and Life Sciences   
Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616 (VIJV1)   
6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands   
+31 (43) 388-4170 | http://www.wvbauer.com   


> -----Original Message-----
> From: r-sig-mixed-models-bounces at r-project.org [mailto:r-sig-mixed-models-
> bounces at r-project.org] On Behalf Of Ben Bolker
> Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 00:03
> To: r-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org
> Subject: Re: [R-sig-ME] lme4.0
> 
> Viechtbauer Wolfgang (STAT <wolfgang.viechtbauer at ...> writes:
> 
> >
> > Dear lme4 Authors,
> >
> > I am wondering if a lme4.0 version (i.e., a backwards compatible,
> >  bug fixes only version) is still going to
> > be released (via CRAN). I noticed that lme4 version 1.0-4 is
> >  (currently) available for R-devel, but there
> > is no lme4.0. Does this indicate that lme4.0 is off the table?
> >
> 
>   It's not off the table, but is very much up in the air (to mix
> metaphors).  As of right now we haven't convinced the CRAN maintainers
> to accept lme4.0, but we haven't given up either. Our
> best chance of convincing them seems to be to get almost all of the
> downstream packages go smoothly to lme4, so that only a few are left
> depending on lme4.0 (thus hopefully convincing the CRAN maintainers
> that the scope for lme4.0/lme4 trouble is small).
>   I don't expect this to be settled in the very near future; we will
> focus our attention on helping package maintainers with the upgrade
> process for the next couple of weeks, then assess the situation/renew
> our lobbying efforts.
>   In case anyone was thinking of contacting the CRAN maintainers
> independently to plead for lme4.0, please *don't* -- if you have
> thoughts on the subject or just want to make strong statements about
> how important it is, please bring it up with the lme4 authors
> instead.
> 
>   cheers
>     Ben Bolker
> 
> PS this response is my own personal take on the situation, but I
> think it is fairly representative of the view of all of the lme4
> authors ...
> 
> _______________________________________________
> R-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mixed-models