> Hi David, > > Thank you for the response. A few comments below.
[snip] > I think you're right that there is some shaky ground here, and Doug > Bates has pointed out some issues on the R-sig-mixed-models list (I > can't seem to find the thread right now). One of the issues is that > mixed models are generally fit with REML, which is not ML and > therefore does not technically conform to the derivations of the *IC. > If you fit a mixed model with ML instead, bias is introduced. Bates think that the maximum log likelihood is not a problem with mixed models when fit using ML: http://finzi.psych.upenn.edu/R/Rhelp02a/archive/117488.html though he does see a problem with the counting of parameters. Sorry if I am a bit lost coming late to this thread. R. _______________________________________________ R-sig-ecology mailing list R-sig-ecology@r-project.org https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-ecology
