Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fixed effect-only models are bugged #77

Open
jeffkeller87 opened this issue Mar 31, 2016 · 2 comments
Open

Fixed effect-only models are bugged #77

jeffkeller87 opened this issue Mar 31, 2016 · 2 comments

Comments

@jeffkeller87
Copy link

Looks like a bug was introduced for fixed effect-only models when code was added for sample-level likelihood calculations. This obviously needs to be fixed but I'd also like to better understand the purpose of these new calculations and the calculations themselves to be better able to integrate them into resultant RSGHB model objects. Specifically, regarding print and summary methods.

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Mar 31, 2016

Sample-level/upper-level log likelihood is appropriate for model
comparisons like the DIC and Bayes factors.

What is this bug? The sample level stuff is a recent addition and hasn't
been tested. It is also not on CRAN
On Mar 31, 2016 7:18 PM, "Jeff Keller" notifications@github.com wrote:

Looks like a bug was introduced for fixed effect-only models when
@jeffdumont https://github.com/jeffdumont added code for sample-level
likelihood calculations. This obviously needs to be fixed but I'd also like
to better understand the purpose of these new calculations and the
calculations themselves to be better able to integrate them into resultant
RSGHB model objects. Specifically, regarding print and summary methods.


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#77

@jeffkeller87
Copy link
Author

I think the bug is somewhere between lines 166 and 202 of hb.R. I suspect there needs to be logic put in place when gNIV is 0.

Related, but it looks like sLikelihood (which I want to rename to be consistent with ll0 and llf) is calculated at every keeper iteration. Is this intentional? Would it make more sense to calculate it every gINFOSKIP iteration in progreport?

Line 201 adds a call to likelihood, which is going to have big a impact on performance. Can we use the call on line 6, and the resultant p object for this purpose? Wouldn't it make sense to do it here anyway since the value of a at the end of the function is really the set of values for the next iteration?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant