[R-sig-ME] lme: predictions variance collapses when one more level is added
Ben Bolker
bbolker at gmail.com
Mon Oct 28 03:43:41 CET 2013
Dieter Menne <dieter.menne at ...> writes:
>
> Ben Bolker commented:
>
> > Sorry for snipping context here (I'm posting via gmane, which doesn't
> > like that). If I use weights=varIdent(form=~1|treat)) rather than
> > weights=varPower() (i.e. residual variance varies by treatment group,
> > rather than as a power function of the estimated mean), I get what
> > seem (at least at a quick glance) to be reasonable results.
>
> You are right; I received a similar comment from Ariel Muldoon off-list. I
> admit that I have tried it, but most have done some stupid syntax mistake so
> it go away unnoticed.
>
> While it is a solution, I still do not understand what really happens with
> the prediction. And, assuming I am using lmer, what should I do? I noted the
> same collapsing effect.
>
> Dieter
>
I assume that what's going on is just the fairly frequently observed
situation that when the fourth group is included (without invoking
heteroscedasticity), the among-group variation is actually less than
expected from the within-group variation (i.e. less than
var(within)/(n per group)), implying a negative within-group correlation ...
I don't think transforming will help here ... David Afshartous
had some postings on allowing different random-effect variances
by treatment groups, but that's not what you need. We have talked
some about how to implement heteroscedasticity models in lme4, but it's a lot
of work/more or less just a gleam in our eye at this point ...
Which aspects of lmer are essential in this analysis
(e.g. profiling, speed, consistency with other analyses, ...?)
Ben Bolker
More information about the R-sig-mixed-models
mailing list