Inferential procedures for random effects in generalized linear mixed models

We study three commonly applied measures of uncertainty for random effects prediction in generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs), namely the unconditional and conditional mean squared errors of prediction (UMSEP and CMSEP, respectively), and the unconditional variance of the prediction gap used by the popular R package for glmmTMB. We demonstrate that, although the three theoretical measures differ in how they quantify uncertainty, the resulting estimators all turn out to be very similar in form. We derive asymptotic results regarding the consistency of the three measures of uncertainty, and in doing so resolve a contradiction between theoretical and empirical results for the glmmTMB variance estimator by re-interpreting it conditionally on a finite subset of the random effects. Our results have important implications for predictive inference in GLMMs, particularly around the legitimacy and implications of coupling these measures with a normality assumption to construct prediction intervals for the random effects.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PLoS ONE
Published
2025-04-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320797
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.63

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Inferential procedures for random effects in generalized linear mixed models

Francis K. C. Hui, Ning Xu, A. H. Welsh
1 citations
PLoS ONE
Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
2.63
article

Inferential procedures for random effects in generalized linear mixed models

Francis K. C. Hui, Ning Xu, A. H. Welsh
article en
1 citations

Abstract

We study three commonly applied measures of uncertainty for random effects prediction in generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs), namely the unconditional and conditional mean squared errors of prediction (UMSEP and CMSEP, respectively), and the unconditional variance of the prediction gap used by the popular R package for glmmTMB. We demonstrate that, although the three theoretical measures differ in how they quantify uncertainty, the resulting estimators all turn out to be very similar in form. We derive asymptotic results regarding the consistency of the three measures of uncertainty, and in doing so resolve a contradiction between theoretical and empirical results for the glmmTMB variance estimator by re-interpreting it conditionally on a finite subset of the random effects. Our results have important implications for predictive inference in GLMMs, particularly around the legitimacy and implications of coupling these measures with a normality assumption to construct prediction intervals for the random effects.

PLoS ONEVol. 20(4)
Australian National University (AU)
Australian Research Council
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
2.63
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.