ML vs. REML [🇷 for BE/BA]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2015-04-20 18:35 (4079 d 12:24 ago) – Posting: # 14717
Views: 31,868

Hi ElMaestro,

❝ There is still something that really bothers me and that is the log Likelihood difference of R versus WNL. With REML I think optimisation switches back and forth be in terms of the estimates. […]



Maybe, maybe not. PHX’ manual only tells me:

The linear mixed effects model is:

y = Xβ + Zγ + ε,
V = Variance(y) =ZGZT + R.

Let θ be a vector consisting of the variance parameters in G and R. The full maximum likelihood procedure (ML) would simultaneously esti­mate both the fixed effects parameters β and the variance parameters θ by maximizing the likelihood of the observations y with respect to these parameters. In contrast, restricted maximum likelihood esti­ma­tion (REML) maximizes a likelihood that is only a function of the vari­ance parameters θ and the observations y, and not a function of the fixed effects parameters. Hence for models that do not contain any fixed effects, REML would be the same as ML.


❝ ML would only be plain and simple covariance matrix fiddling, I think (?).


Well, we do have fixed effects, right? At least in PHX/WNL, only REML is imple­mented. IIRC, REML is recommended by Patterson/Jones somewhere.


Thread closed. Please continue over there.

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes
Thread locked

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,570 registered users;
128 visitors (0 registered, 128 guests [including 17 identified bots]).
Forum time: 07:00 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Science is simply common sense at its best that is,
rigidly accurate in observation, and
merciless to fallacy in logic.    Thomas Henry Huxley

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5