similar to: predict.lme / glmmPQL: "non-conformable arguments"

I'm trying to use "predict" with a linear mixed-effects logistic regression model fitted with nlmmPQL from the MASS library. Unfortunately, I'm getting an error "non-conformable arguments" in predict.lme, and I would like to understand why. I have used the same call to "predict" with "glm" models without problems. I assume I'm doing

Many thanks for your very useful comments and suggestions. Renaud 2006/5/30, Prof Brian Ripley <ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk>: > On Tue, 30 May 2006, Prof Brian Ripley wrote: > > > This is not really a bug. See > > > > http://developer.r-project.org/model-fitting-functions.txt > > > > for how this is handled in other packages. All model-fitting in R used =

Full_Name: Renaud Lancelot Version: Version 2.3.0 (2006-04-24) OS: MS Windows XP Pro SP2 Submission from: (NULL) (82.239.219.108) I think there is a bug in predict.lme, when a polynomial generated by poly() is used as an explanatory variable, and a new data.frame is used for predictions. I guess this is related to * not * using, for predictions, the coefs used in constructing the orthogonal

Greetings R-helpers, I am attempting to fit an lme() while specifying a correlation structure, but I'm getting into trouble long before I get to that point. I am receiving the error: Error in y[revOrder] - Fitted : non-conformable arrays It doesn't seem to matter how simple or complex the model I specify is, it always gives this same error message. This makes me suspect something is

I'm having some difficulty with graphing outputs of a GLM model I've been working. I have count data for both my predictor (only 1) and response variables, and I have pseudoreplication which I've modeled as a random effect. The odTest() from pscl:: indicated that the negative binomial distribution fit better than Poisson, and I then proceeded by estimating theta from glm.nb. My

I asked a few days ago about the difference in results I saw between the MASS function glmmPQL (due to Venables and Ripley) and the lme function from the package nlme (due to Pinheiro and Bates). When the two tools apply to the same model (gaussian, link=identity, correlation=AR1), I was getting different results and wondered if there was an argument in favor of one or the other. Several

I have a longitudinal data analysis project. There are 10 observations on each of 15 units, and I'm estimating this with randomly varying intercepts along with an AR1 correction for the error terms within units. There is no correlation across units. Blundering around in R for a long time, I found that for linear/gaussian models, I can use either the MASS method glmmPQL (thanks to

Hi, I have a spatial data set with many observations (~50,000) and would like to keep as much data as possible. There is spatial dependence, so I am attempting a mixed model in R with a spherical variogram defining the correlation as a function of distance between points. I have tried nlme, lme, glmmML, and glmmPQL. In all case the matrix needed (seems to be (N^2)/2 - N) is too large for my

Hi all - R2.0.1, OS X Perhaps while there is some discussion of lme going on..... I am trying to execute a glmm using glmmPQL from the MASS libray, using the example data set from McCullagh and Nelder's (1989, p442) table 14.4 (it happens to be the glmm example for GENSTAT as well). The data are binary, representing mating success (1,0) for crosses between males and females from two

I know it's conventional to report bugs to the maintainer, but I'm not sure which package actually contains this bug(s), so I apologize for sending this to the list at large. I see the bug under both R 2.1.1, and R 2.2.1. (I sent a related message a while ago, but this one has more detail.) library(MASS) library(nlme) fit.model <- function(il, model.family) { cs <-

R, I want to get means and confidence limits on the original scale for the treatment effect after running a mixed model. The data are: response<-c(16,4,5,8,41,45,10,15,11,3,1,64,41,23,18,16,10,22,2,3)

Hello all, I've run into a problem where I can't run predict.lme on an object simplified via a stepAIC. A similar post has been recorded on this list: https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2008-May/162047.html but in my case, I'm going to great lengths to not repeat that poster's error and still coming up short. Any advice would be much appreciated. It would seem that, after

Is the labeling/naming of levels in the documentation for the predict.glmmPQL function "backwards"? The documentation states "Level values increase from outermost to innermost grouping, with level zero corresponding to the population predictions". Taking the sample in the documentation: fit <- glmmPQL(y ~ trt + I(week > 2), random = ~1 | ID, family =

Dear All, I have a query relating to the use of the ?predict? and ?gamm? functions. I am dealing with large (approx. 5000) sets of presence/absence data, which I am trying to model as a function of different of environmental covariates. Ideally my models should include individual and colony as random factors. I have been trying to fit binomial models using the gamm function to achieve this. For

Hello, and thanks in advance! What does the error message "Error in x %*% coef(object) : non- conformable arguments" when indicate when predicting values for newdata with a model from bigglm (in package biglm), and how can I debug it? I am attempting to do Monte Carlo simulations, which may explain the somewhat interesting loop which follows. After the code I have included the output,

Does lme prediction work correctly with poly() terms? In the following simulated example, the predictions are wildly off. Or am I doing something daft? Milk yield for five cows is measured weekly for 45 weeks. Yield is simulated as cubic function of weekno + random cow effect (on intercept) + residual error. I want to recover an estimate of the fixed curve. ############### library(nlme)

Hello all, I have generated a principal components regression model using the pcr() function from the PLS package (R version 2.12.0). I am getting a "non-conformable arguments" error when I try to use the predict() function on new data, but only when I try to read in the new data from a separate file. More specifically, when my data looks like this #########training data

Dear all, for a cross-validation I have to use predict.glmmPQL() , where the formula of the corresponding glmmPQL call is not given explicitly, but constructed using as.formula. However, this does not work as expected: x1<-rnorm(100); x2<-rbinom(100,3,0.5); y<-rpois(100,2) mydata<-data.frame(x1,x2,y) library(MASS) # works as expected model1<-glmmPQL(y~x1, ~1 | factor(x2),

Hi all - R2.0.1 on OSX;MASS library;nlme library I am trying to emulate the solution to a problem set that has normally been run in Genstat, using R. The problem that I am having at the moment is with the following glmm question (using glmmPQL from the MASS library): "We have two different forest habitats (first rotation thicket, and high forest) which we want to survey for the

Dear All, I would like to ask you to help me with my memeory. I remember using some function that would list all the possible methods I could apply to an object. Say, if I had an object of class=lme, it would tell me that that I could do stuff like qqnorm(myobjct), or VarCorr(myobject). In general, a very complete list. I though this list of all possible methods would pop out by typing