Hi,
this is due to how the A-matrix and inla.stack construction work. See
the 2015 JSS paper by Lindgren and Rue:
https://www.jstatsoft.org/article/view/v063i19
In short, the predictor vector is a concatenation of \eta* and \eta,
where \eta is the basic linear predictor combination defined by the
data provided, which for inla.stack() generated data are the
individual component "effects", and \eta* = A \eta, which is the
predictor that gets associated with observations.
As shown in the ?inla.stack documentation example, you can use the
inla.stack.index() function as a convenience to find out what values
correspond to \eta* ("data") and to \eta ("effects").
For single stack constructions, the indices are easy to predict, but
for multi-stack models, the tag feature helps identify the precise
parts:
stk <- inla.stack(data=list(y=1:3),A=list(Matrix(1:18,3,6)),effects=list(data.frame(x=11:16)),tag="mytag")
inla.stack.index(stk,"mytag")
$data
[1] 1 2 3
$effects
[1] 4 5 6 7 8 9
Here, the data has three elements, A is a 3-by-6 matrix, and the
effect vector has 6 elements, the end result is that \eta* is in the
first three elements of summary.linear.predictor, and \eta are in the
following six elements.
Finn
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "R-inla discussion group" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
r-inla-discussion...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/r-inla-discussion-group/7a50df90-7e4a-42a5-8384-d345e0188463n%40googlegroups.com.
--
Finn Lindgren
email:
finn.l...@gmail.com