Comparison of computationally efficient approximate methods for nonlinear and generalized linear mixed effects models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) and nonlinear mixed effects (NLME) models are popular in the analysis of longitudinal or clustered data. Statistical inference is typically based on likelihood methods. When the number of random effects in the models is large, the observed-data likelihood function involves high-dimensional and intractable integration, as these models are nonlinear in the (unobserved) random effects. ‘Exact’ methods, such as Monte Carlo EM (MCEM) algorithms and numerical integration methods, can be computationally very intensive and may offer convergence issues. Computationally more efficient approximate methods, such as the stochastic approximation EM (SAEM) algorithm, linearization methods, or Laplace approximation methods, are therefore commonly used in practice. In this article, we conduct a comprehensive simulation study to evaluate and compare commonly used approximate methods based on three popular R packages in their current versions. Each method has its own advantages and limitations. While the performance of a method may depend on its implementation and the software version, the simulation results may still provide some useful guidelines for data analysts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it