Re: [R] understanding the verbose output in nlme

From: Spencer Graves <>
Date: Mon 05 Jun 2006 - 04:49:48 EST

          I don't know, but if it were my question, I think I could find out by making local copies of the functions involved and stepping through the algorithm line by line using "debug" (see, e.g., "").

          Have you read Pinheiro and Bates (2000) Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-Plus? If no, I encourage you to do so. Over the past 4 years or so, I've probably spent more time with this book and referred more people to it than any other. Doug Bates is a leading original contributor in this area, and I believe you will find this book well worth your money and your time.

          Regarding "the numbers under subjectno1-6", I'm guessing that these may be the current estimates of the random effects for the first 6 of the 103 subjects. The purpose of "verbose" is NOT to dump everything but only enough to help you evaluate whether the algorithm seems to be converging.

	  hope this helps.
	  Spencer Graves

Greg Distiller wrote:
> Hi
> I have found some postings referring to the fact that one can try and
> understand why a particular model is failing to solve/converge from the
> verbose output one can generate when fitting a nonlinear mixed model. I am
> trying to understand this output and have not been able to find out much:
> **Iteration 1
> LME step: Loglik: -237.4517 , nlm iterations: 22
> reStruct parameters:
> subjectno1 subjectno2 subjectno3 subjectno4 subjectno5
> subjectno6
> -0.87239181 2.75772772 -0.72892919 -10.36636391 0.55290322
> 0.09878685
> PNLS step: RSS = 60.50164
> fixed effects:2.59129 0.00741764 0.57155
> iterations: 7
> Convergence:
> fixed reStruct
> 5.740688 2.159285
> I know that the Loglik must refer to the value of the log likelihood
> function, that the values after "fixed effects" are the parameter estimates,
> and that the bit after Convergence obviously has something to so with the
> convergence criteria for the fixed effects and the random effects structure.
> I did manage to find a posting where somebody said that the restruct
> parameter is the log of the relative precision of the random effects? The
> one thing that is a bit confusing to me is that it appears as if the fixed
> effects convergence must be zero (or close to it) as one would expect but in
> one of my converged models the output showed a restruct value of 0.72 ?
> Then I have no idea what the numbers under subjectno1-6 are, especially as I
> have 103 subjects in the data!
> Can anyone help shed some light on this output and how it can be used to
> diagnose issues with a model?
> Many thanks
> Greg
> ______________________________________________
> mailing list
> PLEASE do read the posting guide! mailing list PLEASE do read the posting guide! Received on Mon Jun 05 05:01:33 2006

Archive maintained by Robert King, hosted by the discipline of statistics at the University of Newcastle, Australia.
Archive generated by hypermail 2.1.8, at Mon 05 Jun 2006 - 18:10:25 EST.

Mailing list information is available at Please read the posting guide before posting to the list.