Here a new attempt in trying to improve the visual of my request: I'm running a bayesian regression using the package MCMCglmm (Hadfield 2010) and to reach a normal posterior distribution of estimates, I increased the number of iteration as well as the burnin threshold. However, it had unexpected outcomes. Although it improved posterior distribution, it also increased dramatically the value of estimates and decrease DIC.
Here an example: >head(spring) pres large_road small_road cab 0 2011 32 78 1 102 179 204 0 1256 654 984 1 187 986 756 0 21 438 57 1 13 5 439 >#pres is presence/absence data and other variable are distance to these >features >## with 200,000 iteration and 30,000 burnin >prior <- list(R = list(V = 1, nu=0.002)) >sp.simple <- MCMCglmm(pres ~ large_road + cab + small_road, family = >"categorical", nitt = 200000, thin = 200, burnin = 30000, data = spring, prior = prior, verbose = FALSE, pr = TRUE) >summary(sp.simple) Iterations = 30001:199801 Thinning interval = 200 Sample size = 850 DIC: 14045.31 R-structure: ~units post.mean l-95% CI u-95% CI eff.samp units 294.7 1.621 621.9 1.982 Location effects: pres ~ large_road + cab + small_road post.mean l-95% CI u-95% CI eff.samp pMCMC (Intercept) 5.76781 0.77622 9.24375 1.829 <0.001 ** large_road 0.37487 0.02692 0.75282 3.310 <0.001 ** cab 0.94639 0.09906 1.57939 2.096 <0.001 ** small_raod -1.62192 -2.60873 -0.20191 2.002 <0.001 ** >## with 1,000,000 iteration and 500,000 burnin >prior <- list(R = list(V = 1, nu=0.002)) >sp.simple <- MCMCglmm(pres ~ large_road + cab + small_road, family = >"categorical", nitt = 1000000, thin = 200, burnin = 500000, data = spring, prior = prior, verbose = FALSE, pr = TRUE) >summary(sp.simple) Iterations = 500001:999801 Thinning interval = 200 Sample size = 2500 DIC: 858.6316 R-structure: ~units post.mean l-95% CI u-95% CI eff.samp units 26764 17548 34226 124.5 Location effects: pres ~ large_road + cab + small_road post.mean l-95% CI u-95% CI eff.samp pMCMC (Intercept) 60.033 47.360 70.042 137.9 <4e-04 *** large_road 3.977 1.279 6.616 1484.6 0.0080 ** cab 9.913 6.761 13.020 333.7 <4e-04 *** small_raod -16.945 -20.694 -13.492 194.9 <4e-04 *** I'm then wandering if it is because more iteration produce better estimates and then a model that had a better fit with the data. Anyone can help me? Rémi Lesmerises Université du Québec à Rimouski ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see 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.