  Mixed-effects models have emerged as the gold standard of statistical
analysis in different sub-fields of linguistics (Baayen, Davidson & Bates,
2008; Johnson, 2009; Barr, et al, 2013; Gries, 2015). One problematic feature
of these models is their failure to converge under maximal (or even
near-maximal) random effects structures. The lack of convergence is relatively
unaddressed in linguistics and when it is addressed has resulted in statistical
practices (e.g. Jaeger, 2009; Gries, 2015; Bates, et al, 2015b) that are
premised on the idea that non-convergence is an indication that a random
effects structure is over-specified (or not parsimonious), the parsimonious
convergence hypothesis (PCH). We test the PCH by running simulations in lme4
under two sets of assumptions for both a linear dependent variable and a binary
dependent variable in order to assess the rate of non-convergence for both
types of mixed effects models when a known maximal effect structure is used to
generate the data (i.e. when non-convergence cannot be explained by random
effects with zero variance). Under the PCH, lack of convergence is treated as
evidence against a more maximal random effects structure, but that result is
not upheld with our simulations. We provide an alternative model, fully
specified Bayesian models implemented in rstan (Stan Development Team, 2016;
Carpenter, et al, in press) that removed the convergence problems almost
entirely in simulations of the same conditions. These results indicate that
when there is known non-zero variance for all slopes and intercepts, under
realistic distributions of data and with moderate to severe imbalance, mixed
effects models in lme4 have moderate to high non-convergence rates which can
cause linguistic researchers to wrongfully exclude random effect terms.
