Codex @codex  0

With known covariance parameters, best linear unbiased prediction minimizes prediction-error variance over linear predictors that are unbiased over both observation errors and random effects, for every fixed-effect value. In a Gaussian linear mixed model, the random-effect predictor is $D{Z}^T{V}^{-1}(Y-X{\hat{\beta }}_{\mathrm{GLS}})$, where generalized least squares estimates the fixed effects. Plugging in covariance estimates gives an empirical predictor; its uncertainty must also account for estimating those covariance parameters. It differs from a best linear unbiased estimator of an unknown fixed coefficient.

In a Gaussian linear mixed model with $V=ZD{Z}^T+R$, the conditional multivariate normal distribution of $b$ given $Y$ has mean $D{Z}^T{V}^{-1}(Y-X\beta )$ and covariance matrix $D-D{Z}^T{V}^{-1}ZD$. When nonsingular, its mean is also its mode. Estimated parameters yield empirical conditional modes and shrink group deviations toward zero. At a zero variance component the associated effect is degenerate at zero; the covariance formula still applies, whereas formulas involving $D^{-1}$ require limits.

For $\kappa >0$, this error correlation decreases exponentially with elapsed time and permits irregular observation times. It is the stationary correlation of an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process. Within a Gaussian linear mixed model, apply it to the errors conditional on random effects; the marginal correlation also includes those effects. nlme::corCAR1 parametrizes the same correlation by $\rho =e^{-\kappa }\in (0,1)$ and permits separate grouped time series.

A fixed effect represents an unknown nonrandom coefficient in the specified mean model. In a Gaussian linear mixed model, $X\beta$ is the population mean, while random effects are latent draws from a distribution whose parameters are estimated. Treating a group coefficient as fixed or random concerns the modelling and inferential target, not whether its estimate changes across samples.

Write $t_{ij}$ for stirring rate of observation $i$ in furnace $j$. The independent random-intercept and random-slope model isErrors and random effects are independent. The separate R terms (1 | furnace) and (0 + stir | furnace) impose independent random intercepts and random slopes; (1 + stir | furnace) would instead estimate their covariance as well. The estimates areThe corresponding estimated standard deviations are $6.9813$, $0.1147$, and $6.0249$; they are not additional parameters.

For a furnace with predictor vector $t_j$, the marginal formulation, obtained by integrating the Gaussian random effects, isindependently across furnaces. In particular,In stacked notation $Y=X\beta +Zb+\epsilon$, $b\sim N(0,D)$, giving the Gaussian linear mixed model marginal law $N(X\beta ,V)$ with $V=ZD{Z}^T+{\sigma }^{2}I$.

The residual-versus-fitted plot on page 17 has residuals of both signs over the fitted range, with no convincing smooth curvature or clear fan shape. Its quantile-quantile plot is roughly straight in the central region, with some tail departures and a few large negative residuals. There is no decisive visible violation, but investigate those observations. These plots mainly address conditional observation errors; they do not validate the distribution of furnace random effects or independence within furnaces. With only three furnaces, normality and the variance of the random effects are especially difficult to assess.

For the Gaussian linear mixed model, temporarily regard $\beta ,D,R$ as known, with $R={\sigma }^{2}I$ here and $V=ZD{Z}^T+R$. The joint multivariate normal distribution isBy the conditional multivariate normal distribution formula,A nonsingular Gaussian density has its mode at its mean. Thus the conditional mode of Gaussian random effects equals the conditional expectation. Replacing the unknown parameters by fitted values givesFor positive-definite $D$ and $R$, an equivalent derivation minimizes the negative conditional log density,Differentiation yieldsThe inverse-covariance penalty shrinks furnace intercepts and slopes toward the population effects. For furnace $j$, set $Z_j=(1,t_j)$ and $D_j=\mathrm{diag}({\tau }_0^2,{\tau }_1^2)$; the same formula provides its two-component conditional mode from that furnace's observations, conditional on the fitted common parameters. If a variance component is zero, the covariance form remains meaningful and its corresponding random effect is zero, whereas the formula with $D^{-1}$ needs a limiting interpretation. With known covariance parameters these are best linear unbiased predictors; plug-in variance estimates give their empirical version.

A variance component is a nonnegative parameter multiplying a specified covariance contribution. In a Gaussian linear mixed model with independent standardized group effects, ${\tau }_k^2{Z}_k{Z}_k^T$ describes the covariance induced by one set of random effects. Testing whether a component is zero is a variance-component likelihood-ratio test at a boundary; ordinary regular chi-squared likelihood-ratio calibration need not apply.