Bert, you've been very helpful. It sounds like for my meagre needs, nlme is what I should stick with. However, I'll wait for Bates to weigh in on the pros and cons of each. Thanks!
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Bert Gunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Doug Bates is the authority of course, but perhaps a couple of quick inline > comments may suffice: > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Mitchell Maltenfort > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 7:41 AM > To: r-help@r-project.org > Subject: [R] Think I'm sure, but confirm: lme4 vs. nlme > > The impression I get from the list and the references I've perused is > that nlme is being phased out in favor of lme4, but lme4 still doesn't > have a complete feature set yet. > > -- Not exactly. nlme isn't really being phased out (yet anyway) -- it's just > not being improved anymore. However, it is a pretty nice implementation of > mixed effects models for continuous data with Gaussian errors with nested > random effects. And not too large data sets. I would opine that it handles > the bulk of mixed effects models that one encounters in the physical and > biological sciences very well. > > What I'm still fuzzy on, being a relative R newbie, is: > > (a) what features in nlme are currently missing in lme4 > (b) what's the projected time frame on getting them implemented. > > -- I think the time frame is "continuing, as Doug is able to work on it." As > a user, I would say that this is not a discrete event, but an evolving work. > I use lme4 routinely now. > As for features, that is difficult to answer. Last I checked, nlme has a > good predict method but lme4 didn't. lme4 does mcmc for the posterior > distribution of parameters in Gaussian models, nlme doesn't; but nlme does > an approximate version of confidence intervals for parameters. Also lme4 > handles glm's, crossed random factors, very large data sets; nlme does none > of this. Etc. Doug may, of course, have corrections or additions here. > > If anyone can answer my naive and impertinent question in a friendly, > helpful and informative manner[1], I would be delighted. Thanks! > > -- I didn't consider your questions naive or impertiment. I leave it to you > to judge whether I have been friendly or helpful. > > Cheers, > Bert Gunter > > [1] Or, translated from craven, "please don't ignite a flame war on my > no-account account" > > Regards, > > Mitch > -- > Due to the recession, requests for instant gratification will be > deferred until arrears in scheduled gratification have been satisfied. > > ______________________________________________ > R-help@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. > > -- Due to the recession, requests for instant gratification will be deferred until arrears in scheduled gratification have been satisfied. ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
