[R-sig-ME] Convergence Error: 0 Fixed Correlations and More
Thierry Onkelinx
thierry.onkelinx at inbo.be
Tue Sep 22 09:33:56 CEST 2015
Dear Chris,
The correct syntax is (1 + FactorC | item) not (1 + FactorC || item).
Use a single |. I find the item.1 strange in the output. This might be
due to the syntax error.
The item random effect variances are quit high. You might have a
problem of quasi-complete separation. (1 + FactorC | item) might be
too complex for your data. Does (1 | item) converge?
Best regards,
ir. Thierry Onkelinx
Instituut voor natuur- en bosonderzoek / Research Institute for Nature
and Forest
team Biometrie & Kwaliteitszorg / team Biometrics & Quality Assurance
Kliniekstraat 25
1070 Anderlecht
Belgium
To call in the statistician after the experiment is done may be no
more than asking him to perform a post-mortem examination: he may be
able to say what the experiment died of. ~ Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher
The plural of anecdote is not data. ~ Roger Brinner
The combination of some data and an aching desire for an answer does
not ensure that a reasonable answer can be extracted from a given body
of data. ~ John Tukey
2015-09-21 18:37 GMT+02:00 Chris Heffner <heffner op umd.edu>:
> Hi,
>
> I'm running a psychology experiment with a few fixed effects and random
> factors, but for some of the models that I'm comparing I get an output that
> looks something like this:
>
> Generalized linear mixed model fit by maximum likelihood (Laplace
> Approximation) ['glmerMod']
> Family: binomial ( logit )
> Formula: FW ~ FactorA + FactorB + FactorC + FactorA:FactorC +
> FactorB:FactorC + (1 | participant) + (1 + FactorC || item)
> Data: east.acc1.subset
> Control: glmerControl(optCtrl = list(maxfun = 30000))
>
> AIC BIC logLik deviance df.resid
> 1001.5 1066.9 -487.7 975.5 1120
>
> Scaled residuals:
> Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
> -3.8335 -0.3041 0.1416 0.3566 2.8851
>
> Random effects:
> Groups Name Variance Std.Dev. Corr
> item FactorCB 5.454e+00 2.3352985
> FactorCS 3.097e+00 1.7597629 -0.81
> item.1 (Intercept) 5.437e+00 2.3316731
> participant (Intercept) 2.595e-08 0.0001611
> Number of obs: 1133, groups: item, 55; participant, 23
>
> (Intercept) 0.1928833 0.0006222 310.0 <2e-16 ***
> FactorAInitial 1.8077886 0.0006222 2905.5 <2e-16 ***
> FactorB150 -0.4506653 0.0006220 -724.5 <2e-16 ***
> FactorB200 -0.5485114 0.0006220 -881.9 <2e-16 ***
> FactorCS -0.3923921 0.0006221 -630.8 <2e-16 ***
> FactorAInitial:FactorCS -0.0889474 0.0006221 -143.0 <2e-16 ***
> FactorB150:FactorCS 0.1347207 0.0006221 216.6 <2e-16 ***
> FactorB200:FactorCS 0.0682518 0.0006221 109.7 <2e-16 ***
> ---
> Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
>
> Correlation of Fixed Effects:
> (Intr) FAIn FB150 FB200 FCS FAI:FCS FB150:FCS
> FAIntl 0.000
> FB150 0.000 0.000
> FB200 0.000 0.000 0.000
> FCS 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
> FaInt:FCS 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
> FB150:FCS 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
> FB200:FCS 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
>
> convergence code: 0
> Model failed to converge with max|grad| = 0.113738 (tol = 0.001, component
> 1)
> Model is nearly unidentifiable: very large eigenvalue
> - Rescale variables?
>
> I've tried look through my data, as my first thought was that data was
> somehow miscoded, but I can't see anything that would be the matter. A
> more complicated version of the model had the same problem until I got rid
> of a single participant (who seemed otherwise entirely unexceptional). The
> more complicated model now converges fine, but this simpler one now has
> these issues. I have an almost identical dataset that I've been doing
> almost exactly the same models with that hasn't been giving me similar
> problems.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Chris
>
> [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
> _______________________________________________
> R-sig-mixed-models op r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mixed-models
More information about the R-sig-mixed-models
mailing list