[R] [OFF] stepwise using REML???
Ronaldo Reis Jr.
chrysopa at insecta.ufv.br
Mon Jun 23 15:12:45 CEST 2003
Em Dom 22 Jun 2003 11:18, Douglas Bates escreveu:
> > For nested design it may be very dangerous due the difference in
> > variance structure, mainly in a splitplot design. ML make
> > significative variables that REML dont make.
>
> It would be good to quote an example that shows this. I'm not sure
> that this occurs in general.
Look this example:
Using stepwise with a ML estimation:
--------------------------------------
m0.ml <- lme(response~1,random=~1|plot1/plot2,method="ML")
mfull.ml <- update(m0.ml,.~.+v1*v2+v1*v3)
> stepAIC(mfull.ml)
Start: AIC= 250.23
response ~ v1 + v2 + v3 + v1:v2 + v1:v3
Df AIC
- v1:v3 11 249.82
<none> 250.23
- v1:v2 2 253.65
...
Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood
Data: NULL
Log-likelihood: -112.9370
Fixed: response ~ v1 + v2 + v1:v2
(Intercept) v1 v2l2
12.5936495 -0.3327049 -15.9920774
v2l3 v1:v2l2 v1:v2l3
-12.5285727 0.3750894 0.3014936
Random effects:
Formula: ~1 | plot1
(Intercept)
StdDev: 0.004214203
Formula: ~1 | plot2 %in% plot1
(Intercept) Residual
StdDev: 0.3051747 0.5556307
Number of Observations: 124
Number of Groups:
plot1 plot2 %in% plot1
6 17
--------------------------------------
in this case the selected model is v1*v2, but in this case it use the same
denominator DF for all variables, and it is not true.
In anova made by REML:
--------------------------------------
m0 <- lme(response~1,random=~1|plot1/plot2)
mfull <- update(m0,.~.+v1*v2+v1*v3)
anova(mfull)
numDF denDF F-value p-value
(Intercept) 1 85 126.08414 <.0001
v1 1 8 1.86229 0.2095
v2 2 3 1.90189 0.2928
v3 11 85 1.58872 0.1167
v1:v2 2 8 3.53897 0.0792
v1:v3 11 85 1.71976 0.0825
---------------------------------------
In this case all variables are not significative.
>
> > I read an article that is made a stepwise procedure using GENSTAT.
> >
> > from article:
> > "Terms were dropped from a model in a stepwise procedure by assessing the
> > change in deviance between the full model and the submodel."
> >
> > All are made using REML.
> >
> > It is possible?! I dont know GENSTAT.
>
> You would need to be more specific about how the comparisons are made.
> I assume that you plan to keep the random effects structure constant
> and compare two nested models that differ only in the fixed effects
> terms. I can think of four ways of doing this:
>
> 1) Use the F-test obtained by fitting the full model and conditioning
> on the estimates of the random effects parameters. This is what the
> anova function applied to an model fit by lme gives.
>
> 2) Fit both models and compare the values of the REML criterion in a
> likelihood ratio test.
>
> 3) Fit both models by REML and compare the values of the
> log-likelihood (i.e. the ML criterion) in a likelihood ratio test.
> You can obtain that value with logLik(fm, REML=FALSE) if fm is your
> fitted model.
>
> 4)Fit both models and evaluate the REML criterion for the full model
> at the two sets of estimates. Compare these values in a likelihood
> ratio test.
>
> I feel that 1) is appropriate, 2) is inappropriate, 3) may be
> appropriate and 4) looks interesting. 4) is based on recent work by
> Greg Reinsel.
>
> In some simulations reported in chapter 3 of Pinheiro and Bates (2000)
> 3) fared badly compared to 1).
>
>
Thanks for all
______________________________________________
> R-help at stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
> https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
--
Nothing is but what is not.
--
| // | \\ [***********************************]
|> ( õ õ ) [Ronaldo Reis Júnior ]
| V [UFV/DBA-Entomologia ]
|> / \ [36571-000 Viçosa - MG ]
| /(.''`.)\ [Fone: 31-3899-2532 ]
|>/(: :' :)\ [chrysopa at insecta.ufv.br ]
|/ (`. `'` ) \[ICQ#: 5692561 | LinuxUser#: 205366 ]
|> ( `- ) [***********************************]
|>> _/ \_Powered by GNU/Debian Woody/Sarge
More information about the R-help
mailing list