Re: [R] lme and varFunc()

2005-01-26 Thread Andrew Robinson
Christoph,

- Original Message -
From: Christoph Scherber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 7:57 pm
Subject: Re: [R] lme and varFunc()

> Dear all,
> 
> I am expecting a Poisson error distribution in my lme with 
> weights=varFunc().
> 
> The "weigths= varPower (form= fitted (.))" doesn´t work due to 
> missing 
> values in the response:
> 
> Problem in lme.formula(fixed = sqrt(nrmainaxes + 0...: Maximum 
> number of iterations reached without convergence. 
> Use traceback() to see the call stack

Are you certain that this is caused by missing values in the response?  It 
looks like something quite different to me.  How did the response come to have 
missing values?  

> That´s why I´ve used one of my most important explanatory 
> variables as a variance covariate:
> 
> weigths= varPower (form=~explanatory)
> 
> With that, it worked out properly so far.
> 
> What would your suggestion in such a case be?

Does it satisfy your needs with regards to the model diagnostics?  If so, then 
ask yourself: am I fitting a Poisson because it is an important and intrinsic 
part of the model that I need to construct, or am I fitting it in order to 
satisfy the model assumptions?  If the latter then it seems that the Poisson 
might be unnecessary.

I hope that this helps,

Andrew

__
R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html


Re: [R] lme and varFunc()

2005-01-26 Thread Christoph Scherber
Dear all,
I am expecting a Poisson error distribution in my lme with 
weights=varFunc().

The "weigths= varPower (form= fitted (.))" doesn´t work due to missing 
values in the response:

Problem in lme.formula(fixed = sqrt(nrmainaxes + 0...: Maximum number of iterations reached without convergence. 
Use traceback() to see the call stack

That´s why I´ve used one of my most important explanatory variables as a 
variance covariate:
weigths= varPower (form=~explanatory)
With that, it worked out properly so far.
What would your suggestion in such a case be?
Regards
Christoph

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am currently analyzing a dataset using lme(). The model I 
use has the following structure:

model<-lme(response~Covariate+TreatmentA+TreatmentB,
  random=~1|Block/Plot,method="ML")
When I plot the residuals against the fitted values, I see a clear 
positive trend (meaning that the variance increases with the mean).

I tried to solve this issue using weights=varPower(), but it
doesn´t change the residual plot at all.
   

You are aware that you need to use something like 

weigths= varPower (form= fitted (.))
and the plot residuals using e.g.
scatter.smooth (fitted (model), resid (model, type= 'n'))
Maybe the latter should also be ok with the default pearson residuals, but I
am not sure.
Possibly a look into the following would help?
@Book{Pin:00a,
 author ={Pinheiro, Jose C and Bates, Douglas M},
 title = {Mixed-Effects Models in {S} and {S}-{P}{L}{U}{S}},
 publisher = {Springer},
 year =  {2000},
 address =   {New York}
}
 

How would you implement such a positive trend in the variance? I´ve 
tried glmmPQL (which works great with poisson errors), but 
using glmmPQL I can´t do model simplification.
   

Well, what error distribution do you have / do you expect?
Regards, Lorenz
- 
Lorenz Gygax, Dr. sc. nat.
Centre for proper housing of ruminants and pigs
Swiss Federal Veterinary Office

__
R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
 

__
R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html


Re: [R] lme and varFunc()

2005-01-25 Thread Dimitris Rizopoulos
Hi Chris,
You could perform a graphical check before deciding which variance 
function is reasonable to use. For example, in your case maybe 
something like:

plot(model1, resid(., type="p")~Block)
would have shown that the variability depends on `Block' (note: 
`Block' sounds like a categorical variable, if so probably you could 
also consider `varIdent()')

I hope it helps.
Best,
Dimitris

Dimitris Rizopoulos
Ph.D. Student
Biostatistical Centre
School of Public Health
Catholic University of Leuven
Address: Kapucijnenvoer 35, Leuven, Belgium
Tel: +32/16/336899
Fax: +32/16/337015
Web: http://www.med.kuleuven.ac.be/biostat
http://www.student.kuleuven.ac.be/~m0390867/dimitris.htm
- Original Message - 
From: "Christoph Scherber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: [R] lme and varFunc()


Dear all,
Regarding the lme with varFunc() question I posted a few days ago: I 
have used the following two approaches:

model1<-lme(response~Covariate+Block+TreatmentA+TreatmentB,random=~1|Plot/Subplot,method="ML")
model2a<-update(model1,weights=varPower(form=~ fitted(.)))
model2b<-update(model1,weights=varPower(form=~block))
While model2a produces an error
"Problem in .C("mixed_loglik",: subroutine mixed_loglik: Missing 
values in argument 1 Use traceback() to see the call stack"

Model 2b seems to work fine, now.
I´m not sure why model2a doesn´t work, but using an important 
explanatory variable (block) as a variance covariate seems to do a 
better job (although I don´t really understand why)

Does anyone have an explanation for this?
Regards,
Chris.


Andrew Robinson wrote:
Dear Christoph,
what command are you using to plot the residuals?  If you use the
default residuals it will not reflect the variance model.  If you 
use
the argument

type="p"
then you get the Pearson residuals, which will reflect the weights
model.  Try something like this:
plot(model, resid(., type = "p") ~ fitted(.), abline = 0)
I hope that this helps,
Andrew
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 02:28:44PM +0100, Christoph Scherber wrote:
Dear R users,
I am currently analyzing a dataset using lme(). The model I use has 
the following structure:

model<-lme(response~Covariate+TreatmentA+TreatmentB,random=~1|Block/Plot,method="ML")
When I plot the residuals against the fitted values, I see a clear 
positive trend (meaning that the variance increases with the mean).

I tried to solve this issue using weights=varPower(), but it 
doesn?t change the residual plot at all.

How would you implement such a positive trend in the variance? I?ve 
tried glmmPQL (which works great with poisson errors), but using 
glmmPQL I can?t do model simplification.

Many thanks for your help!
Regards
Chris.
__
R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide! 
http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html


__
R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide! 
http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html

__
R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html


Re: [R] lme and varFunc()

2005-01-25 Thread Christoph Scherber
Dear all,
Regarding the lme with varFunc() question I posted a few days ago: I 
have used the following two approaches:

model1<-lme(response~Covariate+Block+TreatmentA+TreatmentB,random=~1|Plot/Subplot,method="ML")
model2a<-update(model1,weights=varPower(form=~ fitted(.)))
model2b<-update(model1,weights=varPower(form=~block))
While model2a produces an error
"Problem in .C("mixed_loglik",: subroutine mixed_loglik: Missing values in argument 1 
Use traceback() to see the call stack"

Model 2b seems to work fine, now.
I´m not sure why model2a doesn´t work, but using an important explanatory 
variable (block) as a variance covariate seems to do a better job (although I 
don´t really understand why)
Does anyone have an explanation for this?
Regards,
Chris.


Andrew Robinson wrote:
Dear Christoph,
what command are you using to plot the residuals?  If you use the
default residuals it will not reflect the variance model.  If you use
the argument
type="p"
then you get the Pearson residuals, which will reflect the weights
model.  Try something like this:
plot(model, resid(., type = "p") ~ fitted(.), abline = 0)
I hope that this helps,
Andrew
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 02:28:44PM +0100, Christoph Scherber wrote:
 

Dear R users,
I am currently analyzing a dataset using lme(). The model I use has the 
following structure:

model<-lme(response~Covariate+TreatmentA+TreatmentB,random=~1|Block/Plot,method="ML")
When I plot the residuals against the fitted values, I see a clear 
positive trend (meaning that the variance increases with the mean).

I tried to solve this issue using weights=varPower(), but it doesn?t 
change the residual plot at all.

How would you implement such a positive trend in the variance? I?ve 
tried glmmPQL (which works great with poisson errors), but using glmmPQL 
I can?t do model simplification.

Many thanks for your help!
Regards
Chris.
__
R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide! 
http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
   

 

__
R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html


RE: [R] lme and varFunc()

2005-01-24 Thread Lorenz . Gygax
> I am currently analyzing a dataset using lme(). The model I 
> use has the following structure:
> 
> model<-lme(response~Covariate+TreatmentA+TreatmentB,
>random=~1|Block/Plot,method="ML")
> 
> When I plot the residuals against the fitted values, I see a clear 
> positive trend (meaning that the variance increases with the mean).
> 
> I tried to solve this issue using weights=varPower(), but it
> doesn´t change the residual plot at all.

You are aware that you need to use something like 

weigths= varPower (form= fitted (.))

and the plot residuals using e.g.

scatter.smooth (fitted (model), resid (model, type= 'n'))

Maybe the latter should also be ok with the default pearson residuals, but I
am not sure.

Possibly a look into the following would help?

@Book{Pin:00a,
  author =   {Pinheiro, Jose C and Bates, Douglas M},
  title ={Mixed-Effects Models in {S} and {S}-{P}{L}{U}{S}},
  publisher ={Springer},
  year = {2000},
  address =  {New York}
}

> How would you implement such a positive trend in the variance? I´ve 
> tried glmmPQL (which works great with poisson errors), but 
> using glmmPQL I can´t do model simplification.

Well, what error distribution do you have / do you expect?

Regards, Lorenz
- 
Lorenz Gygax, Dr. sc. nat.
Centre for proper housing of ruminants and pigs
Swiss Federal Veterinary Office

__
R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html


Re: [R] lme and varFunc()

2005-01-24 Thread Andrew Robinson
Dear Christoph,

what command are you using to plot the residuals?  If you use the
default residuals it will not reflect the variance model.  If you use
the argument

type="p"

then you get the Pearson residuals, which will reflect the weights
model.  Try something like this:

plot(model, resid(., type = "p") ~ fitted(.), abline = 0)

I hope that this helps,

Andrew

On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 02:28:44PM +0100, Christoph Scherber wrote:
> Dear R users,
> 
> I am currently analyzing a dataset using lme(). The model I use has the 
> following structure:
> 
> model<-lme(response~Covariate+TreatmentA+TreatmentB,random=~1|Block/Plot,method="ML")
> 
> When I plot the residuals against the fitted values, I see a clear 
> positive trend (meaning that the variance increases with the mean).
> 
> I tried to solve this issue using weights=varPower(), but it doesn?t 
> change the residual plot at all.
> 
> How would you implement such a positive trend in the variance? I?ve 
> tried glmmPQL (which works great with poisson errors), but using glmmPQL 
> I can?t do model simplification.
> 
> Many thanks for your help!
> 
> Regards
> Chris.
> 
> __
> R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
> PLEASE do read the posting guide! 
> http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html

-- 
Andrew Robinson  Ph: 208 885 7115
Department of Forest Resources   Fa: 208 885 6226
University of Idaho  E : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PO Box 441133W : http://www.uidaho.edu/~andrewr
Moscow ID 83843  Or: http://www.biometrics.uidaho.edu
No statement above necessarily represents my employer's opinion.

__
R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html