[R-sig-ME] glmer and influence.me - complaining about nAGQ==0

Phillip Alday me @end|ng |rom ph||||p@|d@y@com
Mon Apr 26 13:54:22 CEST 2021

On 24/4/21 11:08 pm, Ben Bolker wrote:
>    Don't have much to add to John's comments. You can see
> vignette("lmerperf") for a few suggestions on improving performance.
>   I'm a little surprised that your response variable is "logRT" *and*
> you have a log-link; that seems like double-logging?  (I was going to
> suggest that if you aren't wedded to the Gamma model, a log-Normal model
> (lmer(log(logRT) ~ ...) would probably be a lot faster ...)

Are you (Cátia) basing this model off the Lo and Andrews paper? I'm not
sure I really agree with that paper -- they seem very worried about
transformations, but then they use alternative error distributions and
links, which doesn't help interpretation for many users in my experience.

>   It's possible that other platforms (glmmTMB, Julia::MixedModels.jl)
> would be faster ... but then you might be stuck without influence
> diagnostics again ...

We don't have influence currently implemented in MixedModels.jl, but
that wouldn't actually be hard. The bigger issue is that GLMMs with a
dispersion parameter, including Gamma, don't currently work in

More information about the R-sig-mixed-models mailing list