similar to: Gamm and post comparison

Hi, I've an issue adding an interaction to a GAMM: My model was of form: gamm1 <- gamm(TOTSR ~ fROT + s(PH) + s(LOI) + s(ASP) + s(SQRT_ELEV) + CANCOV + s(SQRT_TOTCWD) + s(WELLF) + s(WELLN) + s(OLDWDLD) + s(DISTWOOD) + s(Annprec) + s(OLDWDLD:DISTWOOD) + (1|fSITE), family = poisson, data = BIOFOR2) with interaction of s(OLDWDLD:DISTWOOD). However I got this error message below but

Hi all, I would like to fit a gamm model of the form: Y~X+X*f(z) Where f is the smooth function and With random effects on X and on the intercept. So, I try to write it like this: gam.lme<- gamm(Y~ s(z, by=X) +X, random=list(groups=pdDiag(~1+X)) ) but I get the error message : Error in MEestimate(lmeSt, grps) : Singularity in backsolve at level 0, block 1

Dear R-users, To obtain the percentage of deviance explained when fitting a gam model using the mgcv library is straightforward: summary(object.gam) $dev.expl or alternatively, using the deviance (deviance(object.gam)) of the null and the fitted models, and then using 1 minus the quotient of deviances. However, when a gamm (generalizad aditive mixed model) is fitted, the

Hi all R users ! I'm using gamm function from Simon Wood's mgcv package, to fit a spatial regression Generalized Additive Mixed Model, as covariates I have the geographical longitude and latitude locations of indexed data. I include a random effect for each district (dist) so the code is fit <- gamm(y~s(lon,lat,bs="tp", m=2)+offset(log(exp.)), random=list(dist=~1),

Hello:I run a gamm with following call :mode<-gamm(A~B,random=list(ID=~1),family=gaussian,na.action=na.omit,data=rs)an error happened:ERROR names(object$sp) <- names(G$sp) : attempt to set an attribute on NULLwith mgcv version 1.7-3What so? How can I correct the Error? Thanks very much for any help. [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Hi I am an engineer and am running the package mgcv and specifically the command gamm (generalized additive mixed modelling), with random effects. i have a few queries: 1. When I run the command with 1000/2000 observations, it runs ok. However, I would like to see the results as in vis.gam command in the same package, with the 3-d visuals. It appears no such option is available for gamm in the

Dear useRs, I am using the gamm function in the mgcv package to model a smooth relationship between a covariate and my dependent variable, while allowing for quantification of the subjectwise variability in the smooths. What I would like to do is to make subjectwise predictions for plotting purposes which account for the random smooth components of the fit. An example. (sessionInfo() is at

Hello, I am having some difficulty converting my gam code to a correct gamm code, and I'm really hoping someone will be able to help me. I was previously using this script for my overdispersed gam data: M30 <-gam(efuscus~s(mic, k=7) +temp +s(date)+s(For3k, k=7) + pressure+ humidity, family=negbin(c(1,10)), data=efuscus) My gam.check gave me the attached result. In order to

Try to fit a longitudinal dataset using generalized mixed effects models via the R function gamm() as follows: library(mgcv) gamm0.fit<- gamm(y ~ x+s(z,bs="cr"), random=list( x=~1, s(z,bs="cr")=~1 ), family = binomial, data =raw) the data is

HELLO ALL, I AM GETTING AN ERROR MESSAGE WHEN TRYING TO RUN A GAMM MODEL LIKE THE ONE BELOW. I AM USING R VERSION 2.14.1 (2011-12-22) AND MGCV 1.7-12. M1 <-gamm(DepVar ~ Treatment + s(Year, by =Treatment), random=list(Block=~1), na.action=na.omit, data = mydata, correlation = corARMA(form =~ Year|Treatment, p = 1, q = 0)) THIS IS THE ERROR MESSAGE Error in `*tmp*`[[k]] : attempt to

Greetings all The help file for GAMM in mgcv indicates that the log likelihood for a GAMM reported using summary(my.gamm$lme) (as an example) is not correct. However, in a past R-help post (included below), there is some indication that the likelihood ratio test in anova.lme(mygamm$lme, mygamm1$lme) is valid. How can I tell if anova.lme results are meaningful (are AIC, BIC, and logLik

Dear everyone, I'm encountering an unknown error message when using gamm function: > fitoutput <- gamm(cvd~as.factor(dow)+pm10+s(time,bs="cr",k=15,fx=TRUE)+s(tmean,bs="cr",k=7,fx=TRUE) + ,correlation=corAR1(form=~1|city),family=poisson,random=list(city=~pm10),data=mimp) Maximum number of PQL iterations: 20 iteration 1 iteration 2 iteration 3 iteration 4

Hello, I am a bit confused about gamm in mgcv. Consulting Wood (2006) or Ruppert et al. (2003) hasn't taken away my confusion. In this code from the gamm help file: b2<-gamm(y~s(x0)+s(x1)+s(x2)+s(x3),family=poisson,random=list(fac=~1)) Am I correct in assuming that we have a random intercept here....but that the amount of smoothing is also changing per level of the

Hi there, My question is about the 'theta' parameter in specification of a NB GAMM. I have fit a GAM with an optimum structure of: SB.gam4<-gam(count~offset(vol_offset)+ s(Depth_m, by=StnF, bs="cs")+StageF*RegionF, family=negbin(1, link=log), data=Zoop_2011[Zoop_2011$SpeciesF=='SB',]) However, this GAM shows heterogeneity in the

I'd like to compare tests based on the mixed model representation of additive models, testing among others y=f(x1)+f(x2) vs y=f(x1)+f(x2)+f(x1,x2) (testing for additivity) In mixed model representation, where X represents the unpenalized part of the spline functions and Z the "wiggly" parts, this would be: y=X%*%beta+ Z_1%*%b_1+ Z_2%*%b_2 vs y=X%*%beta+ Z_1%*%b_1+ Z_2%*%b_2 + Z_12

Hi, I was reading the book on "Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R" by Zuur et al. In Section 6.2, an example is discussed where a gamm-model is fitted, with a smoother for time, which differs for each value of ID (4 different bird species). In earlier versions of R, the following code was used BM2<-gamm(Birds~Rain+ID+

Dear all, I am using the "mgcv" package by Simon Wood to estimate an additive mixed model in which I assume normal distribution for the residuals. I would like to test this model vs a standard parametric mixed model, such as the ones which are possible to estimate with "lme". Since the smoothing splines can be written as random effects, is it correct to use an (approximate)

I want to use gamm to generate smoothed trend line for three groups identified by dummy variable genea and geneb. My question is how to add in an interaction term between the time and another dummy variable such as gender? fitm<-gamm(change_gfr~ genea+geneb+s(timea_n,bs="ps")+s(timeb_n,bs="ps")+s(timec_n,bs="ps"),data=mm,random=list(time_n=~1|PID)) -- View this

Dear all, I?m analyzing this dataset containing biodiversity indices, measured over time (Week), and at various contaminant concentrations (Treatment). We have two replicates (Replicate) per treatment. I?m looking for the effects of time (Week) and contaminant concentration (Treatment) on diversity indices (e.g. richness). Initial analysis with GAM models showed temporal autocorrelation of

Dear All Hopefully someone out there can point out what I am missing! I have a (large, several hundred) dataset of gardens in which over two years the presence/absence of a particular bird species is noted each week. I have good reason to believe there is a difference between the two years in the weekly proportion of gardens and would like to assess this, before going on to look in more detail at