Summary

The use of both linear and generalized linear mixed-effects models (LMMs and GLMMs) has become popular not only in social and medical sciences, but also in biological sciences, especially in the field of ecology and evolution. Information criteria, such as Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), are usually presented as model comparison tools for mixed-effects models.


The presentation of ‘variance explained’ (R2) as a relevant summarizing statistic of mixed-effects models, however, is rare, even though R2 is routinely reported for linear models (LMs) and also generalized linear models (GLMs). R2 has the extremely useful property of providing an absolute value for the goodness-of-fit of a model, which cannot be given by the information criteria. As a summary statistic that describes the amount of variance explained, R2 can also be a quantity of biological interest.


One reason for the under-appreciation of R2 for mixed-effects models lies in the fact that R2 can be defined in a number of ways. Furthermore, most definitions of R2 for mixed-effects have theoretical problems (e.g. decreased or negative R2 values in larger models) and/or their use is hindered by practical difficulties (e.g. implementation).


Here, we make a case for the importance of reporting R2 for mixed-effects models. We first provide the common definitions of R2 for LMs and GLMs and discuss the key problems associated with calculating R2 for mixed-effects models. We then recommend a general and simple method for calculating two types of R2 (marginal and conditional R2) for both LMMs and GLMMs, which are less susceptible to common problems.


This method is illustrated by examples and can be widely employed by researchers in any fields of research, regardless of software packages used for fitting mixed-effects models. The proposed method has the potential to facilitate the presentation of R2 for a wide range of circumstances.

https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x

A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models

Statistics for Spatial Data.

Convergence of Probability Measures. By P. Billingsley. Chichester, Sussex, Wiley, 1968. xii, 253 p. 9 1/4“. 117s.

Convergence of Probability Measures

Social Network Analysis

On robust estimation of the location parameter

Given a data set, you can fit thousands of models at the push of a button, but how do you choose the best? With so many candidate models, overfitting is a real danger. Is the monkey who typed Hamlet actually a good writer? Choosing a model is central to all statistical work with data. We have seen rapid advances in model fitting and in the theoretical understanding of model selection, yet this book is the first to synthesize research and practice from this active field. Model choice criteria are explained, discussed and compared, including the AIC, BIC, DIC and FIC. The uncertainties involved with model selection are tackled, with discussions of frequentist and Bayesian methods; model averaging schemes are presented. Real-data examples are complemented by derivations providing deeper insight into the methodology, and instructive exercises build familiarity with the methods. The companion website features Data sets and R code.

Model Selection and Model Averaging

The traditional use of model selection methods in practice is to proceed as if the final selected model had been chosen in advance, without acknowledging the additional uncertainty introduced by model selection. This often means underreporting of variability and too optimistic confidence intervals. We build a general large-sample likelihood apparatus in which limiting distributions and risk properties of estimators post-selection as well as of model average estimators are precisely described, also explicitly taking modeling bias into account. This allows a drastic reduction in complexity, as competing model averaging schemes may be developed, discussed, and compared inside a statistical prototype experiment where only a few crucial quantities matter. In particular, we offer a frequentist view on Bayesian model averaging methods and give a link to generalized ridge estimators. Our work also leads to new model selection criteria. The methods are illustrated with real data applications.

/pdf/frequentist-model-average-estimators-468d9809zz.pdf

Frequentist Model Average Estimators

Model Selection and Model Averaging: Frontmatter

A variety of model selection criteria have been developed, of general and specific types. Most of these aim at selecting a single model with good overall properties, for example, formulated via average prediction quality or shortest estimated overall distance to the true model. The Akaike, the Bayesian, and the deviance information criteria, along with many suitable variations, are examples of such methods. These methods are not concerned, however, with the actual use of the selected model, which varies with context and application. The present article takes the view that the model selector should instead focus on the parameter singled out for interest; in particular, a model that gives good precision for one estimand may be worse when used for inference for another estimand. We develop a method that, for a given focus parameter, estimates the precision of any submodel-based estimator. The framework is that of large-sample likelihood inference. Using an unbiased estimate of limiting risk, we propose a foc...

The Focused Information Criterion

We study the class of penalized spline estimators, which enjoy similarities to both regression splines, without penalty and with fewer knots than data points, and smoothing splines, with knots equal to the data points and a penalty controlling the roughness of the fit. Depending on the number of knots, sample size and penalty, we show that the theoretical properties of penalized regression spline estimators are either similar to those of regression splines or to those of smoothing splines, with a clear breakpoint distinguishing the cases. We prove that using fewer knots results in better asymptotic rates than when using a large number of knots. We obtain expressions for bias and variance and asymptotic rates for the number of knots and penalty parameter.

/pdf/asymptotic-properties-of-penalized-spline-estimators-431x3vvdd5.pdf

Gerda Claeskens

Papers

Model Selection and Model Averaging

Frequentist Model Average Estimators

Model Selection and Model Averaging: Frontmatter

The Focused Information Criterion

Asymptotic properties of penalized spline estimators