Three-level nested mixed-effects model

Question

I am trying to model a three-level nested linear mixed effects model in rjags (by three-level: multiple observations for multiple individuals within multiple groups). There are unique sets of individuals in the groups.

The equivalent model in lme4 would be

lmer(yN ~ x + (1 |group/indiv), data=qq)

or

lmer(yN ~ x + (1 |group) + (1|indiv), data=qq)

My question is: How do I program this model in rjags please.

---

This is my attempt at the rjags code, which compiles, and executes but the individual level random effects seem to be penalised too much - enough to suggest that it is coded incorrectly.

st <- "
model {

  for(i in 1:n){
      mu[i] <- beta[1] + b1[ind[i]] + b2[group[i]] + beta[2]* x[i] 
      y[i] ~ dnorm(mu[i], tau)
  }

  for(i in 1:2){  beta[i] ~ dnorm(0, 0.0001)  }

  tau ~ dgamma(0.01, 0.01)
  sigma <- sqrt(1/tau) 

  # hierarchical model
  for (i in 1:nInd) { b1[i] ~ dnorm(0, tau0) }
  for (i in 1:nGrp) { b2[i] ~ dnorm(0, tau1) }

  tau0 ~ dgamma(0.001, 0.001)
  sigma0 <- sqrt(1/tau0) 
  tau1 ~ dgamma(0.001, 0.001)
  sigma1 <- sqrt(1/tau1) 
}
"

And run model

library(rjags)

mod <- jags.model( textConnection(st),
                 data=list(y=qq$yN, 
                           x=qq$x, 
                           ind=qq$indiv, 
                           group=qq$group,
                           n=nrow(qq),
                           nInd=length(unique(qq$indiv)),
                           nGrp=length(unique(qq$group))),
                 n.adapt=1e6,
                 inits=list(.RNG.seed=1,
                            .RNG.name="base::Wichmann-Hill")
                )
mod <- coda.samples(mod, 
                   variable.names=c("beta","b1", "b2", "sigma", "sigma0", "sigma1"), 
                   n.iter=1e6, 
                   thin=5)

summary(mod)

qq <- structure(list(yN = c(3.51, 5.13, 5.2, 7.46, 5.64, 5.14, 6.84, 
7.19, 7.77, 6, 10.97, 9.75, 5.43, 1.11, 10.31, 5.3, 4.52, 4.62, 
3.97, 4.31, 8.2, 7.24, 6.75, 0, 7.77, 4.25, 5.29, 2.46, 4.3, 
6.67, 8.72, 7.52, 6.12, 6.02, 1.48, 4.65, 7.52, 5.88, 6.06, 5.27, 
6.04, 5.36, 7.34, 6.39, 2.84, 3.95, 8.07, 7.22, 4.78, 9.92, 5.85, 
2.75, 6.34, 2.62, 7.3, 15.45, 5, 1.52, 8.3, 6.25, 16.32, 5.67, 
8.55, 5.72, 2.8, 6.06, 1.3, 11.74, 7.02, 12.85, 6.46, 3.68, 8.48, 
0.28, 0.92), x = c(-0.63, 0.18, -0.84, 1.6, 0.33, -0.82, 0.49, 
0.74, 0.58, -0.31, 1.51, 0.39, -0.62, -2.21, 1.12, -0.04, -0.02, 
0.94, 0.82, 0.59, 0.92, 0.78, 0.07, -1.99, 0.62, -0.06, -0.16, 
-1.47, -0.48, 0.42, 1.36, -0.1, 0.39, -0.05, -1.38, -0.41, -0.39, 
-0.06, 1.1, 0.76, -0.16, -0.25, 0.7, 0.56, -0.69, -0.71, 0.36, 
0.77, -0.11, 0.88, 0.4, -0.61, 0.34, -1.13, 1.43, 1.98, -0.37, 
-1.04, 0.57, -0.14, 2.4, -0.04, 0.69, 0.03, -0.74, 0.19, -1.8, 
1.47, 0.15, 2.17, 0.48, -0.71, 0.61, -0.93, -1.25), indiv = structure(c(1L, 
1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 
4L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 
7L, 7L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 
10L, 10L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 13L, 
13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 
15L), .Label = c("a", "b", "c", "d", "e", "f", "g", "h", "i", 
"j", "k", "l", "m", "n", "o"), class = "factor"), group = structure(c(1L, 
1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 2L, 2L, 
2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 
3L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 
4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 
5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L), .Label = c("A", "B", 
"C", "D", "E"), class = "factor")), .Names = c("yN", "x", "indiv", 
"group"), row.names = c(NA, -75L), class = "data.frame")

---

In a similar example, the nested structure of the data can be accounted for by creating an interaction variable, and using that as the grouping variable (so similar to the previous example of unique sets within groups).

data(Pastes, package="lme4")

lmer(strength ~ 1 + (1|batch/cask), data=Pastes)
lmer(strength ~ 1 + (1|batch) + (1|batch:cask), data=Pastes) # equivalent

How can this be coded in jags, and can it be done without creating an intermediate interaction variable?

Answer 1

For nested effects you need to link the individual effect to the specific group that they are in. The current JAGS model does not currently do this. To do so you need another vector that links the individual to a group.

unq_ind_group <- qq[,3:4]
unq_ind_group <- unq_ind_group[!duplicated(unq_ind_group),]

The updated model:

st <- "
model {
for(i in 1:n){
mu[i] <- beta[1] + b1[ind[i]] + b2[group[i]] + beta[2]* x[i] 
y[i] ~ dnorm(mu[i], tau)
}
for(i in 1:2){  beta[i] ~ dnorm(0, 0.0001)  }
tau ~ dgamma(0.01, 0.01)
sigma <- sqrt(1/tau) 
# hierarchical model
for (i in 1:nGrp) { b2[i] ~ dnorm(0, tau1) }
for (i in 1:nInd) { b1[i] ~ dnorm(b2[ind_per_group[i]], tau0) }
tau0 ~ dgamma(0.001, 0.001)
sigma0 <- sqrt(1/tau0) 
tau1 ~ dgamma(0.001, 0.001)
sigma1 <- sqrt(1/tau1) 
}
"
# fit the model
mod <- jags.model( textConnection(st),
        data=list(y=qq$yN, 
        x=qq$x, 
        ind=qq$indiv, 
        group=qq$group,
        ind_per_group = unq_ind_group$group,
        n=nrow(qq),
        nInd=length(unique(qq$indiv)),
        nGrp=length(unique(qq$group))),
        n.adapt=1e6,
        inits=list(.RNG.seed=1,
       .RNG.name="base::Wichmann-Hill")
)

mod <- coda.samples(mod, 
    variable.names=c("beta","b1", "b2", "sigma", "sigma0", "sigma1"), 
    n.iter=1e6, 
    thin=5)

Here is a comparison of the standard deviations between the above model and the nested model from lme4

m2 <- lmer(yN ~ x + (1 |group/indiv), data=qq)
summary(m2)

The summary from this model tells us that

• the standard devation from indiv:group is 0.7909
• the group standard deviation is 0
• the residual deviation is 1.3629

Here is a plot that compares estimates between models. White dots are JAGS estimates, black dots are from lme4, the vertical lines are 95% credible intervals from JAGS.

Additionally, the priors you have set for the precision term of your random effects have most of their mass at zero which will influence the posterior distribution. This is because there are few individuals per group so the data is not outweighing the prior. Note that the credible intervals for sigma0 are the largest out of the three, which reflects uncertainty in this estimate. Setting a dgamma(0.1,0.1) prior returns estimates that are closer to lme4 (if that is your goal).

UPDATE:

Here is a plot that compares the random effects from the JAGS model to lme4. As with the previous plot. White dots are median estimates from JAGS, black dots are estimates from lme4 via ranef(m2), and vertical lines are 95% credible intervals from JAGS. You can see from this figure that all of the JAGS estimates for the random effects are getting pulled towards zero given that sigma0 is estimated to be smaller.

Here is how I modified the JAGS model to track these random effects as a derived parameter. From there I just added "b_pred" as an additional element to track in the variable.names argument of coda.samples.

st <- "
model {

for(i in 1:n){
mu[i] <- beta[1] + b1[ind[i]] + b2[group[i]] + beta[2]* x[i] 
y[i] ~ dnorm(mu[i], tau)
}

for(i in 1:2){  beta[i] ~ dnorm(0, 0.0001)  }

tau ~ dgamma(0.01, 0.01)
sigma <- sqrt(1/tau) 

# hierarchical model
for (i in 1:nGrp) { b2[i] ~ dnorm(0, tau1) }
for (i in 1:nInd) { b1[i] ~ dnorm(b2[ind_per_group[i]], tau0) }

tau0 ~ dgamma(0.001, 0.001)
sigma0 <- sqrt(1/tau0) 
tau1 ~ dgamma(0.001, 0.001)
sigma1 <- sqrt(1/tau1) 
# calculate random effects
for(i in 1:nInd) {b_pred[i] <- b1[i] + b2[ind_per_group[i]]}

}
"