Why is the model output from a fit with rjags and R2Jags different?

I'm working on fitting a multi-level logistic regression model with group level predictors. I am using JAGS via R. I am getting different behaviors when I fit the model with the runjags versus the R2Jags packages.

I've tried to write a reproducible example that shows the issue. Below, I simulate data from a binomial model, index the data to 8 plots and 2 blocks, and then fit a multi-level logistic regression to recover the success probabilities (b1 and b2) in the code below. Scroll to the bottom to see the summaries of the two fits.

My question is:

1. Why are the posteriors from these two fits different? I am using the same data, a single model specification, and setting the random number generator before each. Why does the mean of the posteriors differ, and why are the Rhat values so different?

# -------------------------------------------------------------------
# Loading required packages
# -------------------------------------------------------------------
library(rjags) 
library(R2jags)
library(MCMCvis)

Package version information:

jags.version()
[1] ‘4.3.0’

R2jags_0.5-7   MCMCvis_0.13.5 rjags_4-10

# -------------------------------------------------------------------
# Simulate data
# -------------------------------------------------------------------
set.seed(10)

N.plots = 8
N.blocks = 2
trials=400

n = rep(100,trials)
N=length(n)
plotReps=N/N.plots
blockReps=N/N.blocks

# Block 1
b1<-rep(c(.25,.75,.9,.1),each=plotReps)-.05
# Block 2
b2<-rep(c(.25,.75,.9,.1),each=plotReps)+.05

y = rbinom(trials, 100, p = c(b1,b2))

# vectors indexing plots and blocks
plot = rep(1:8,each=plotReps)
block = rep(1:2,each=blockReps)

# pass data to list for JAGS
data = list(
  y = y,
  n = n,
  N = length(n),
  plot = plot,
  block= block,
  N.plots = N.plots,
  N.blocks = N.blocks
)

# -------------------------------------------------------------------
# Code for JAGS model
# -------------------------------------------------------------------

modelString <- "model { 
  ## Priors

  # hyperpriors
  mu.alpha ~ dnorm(0, 0.0001)

  sigma.plot ~ dunif(0,100) 
  tau.plot <- 1 / sigma.plot^2

  sigma.block ~ dunif(0,100) 
  tau.block <- 1 / sigma.block^2

  # priors 
  for(i in 1:N.plots){     
    eps.plot[i]~dnorm(0,tau.plot)
  }

  for(i in 1:N.blocks){
    eps.block[i]~dnorm(0,tau.block)
  }

  # Likelihood
  for(i in 1:N){
    logit(p[i]) <- mu.alpha + eps.plot[plot[i]] + eps.block[block[i]]
    y[i] ~ dbin(p[i], n[i])

  }
}"

# -------------------------------------------------------------------
# Initial values
# -------------------------------------------------------------------
# set inits for rjags
inits = list(list(mu.alpha = 0,sigma.plot=2,sigma.block=2),
             list(mu.alpha = 0,sigma.plot=2,sigma.block=2),
             list(mu.alpha = 0,sigma.plot=2,sigma.block=2)) 

# set inits function for R2jags
initsFun<-function(){list(
  mu.alpha=0,
  sigma.plot=2,
  sigma.block=2
)}

# -------------------------------------------------------------------
# Set JAGS parameters and random seed
# -------------------------------------------------------------------
# scalars that specify the 
# number of iterations in the chain for adaptation
# number of iterations for burn-in
# number of samples in the final chain
n.adapt = 500
n.update = 5000
n.iterations = 1000
n.thin = 1
parsToMonitor = c("mu.alpha","sigma.plot","sigma.block","eps.plot","eps.block")

# -------------------------------------------------------------------
# Call to JAGS via rjags
# -------------------------------------------------------------------
set.seed(2)
# tuning (n.adapt)
jm = jags.model(textConnection(modelString), data = data, inits = inits,
                n.chains = length(inits), n.adapt = n.adapt)

# burn-in (n.update)
update(jm, n.iterations = n.update)

# chain (n.iter)
samples.rjags = coda.samples(jm, variable.names = c(parsToMonitor), n.iter = n.iterations, thin = n.thin)

# -------------------------------------------------------------------
# Call to JAGS via R2jags
# -------------------------------------------------------------------
set.seed(2)
samples.R2jags <-jags(data=data,inits=initsFun,parameters.to.save=parsToMonitor,model.file=textConnection(modelString),
                      n.thin=n.thin,n.chains=length(inits),n.burnin=n.adapt,n.iter=n.iterations,DIC=T)

# -------------------------------------------------------------------
# Summarize posteriors using MCMCvis
# -------------------------------------------------------------------
sum.rjags <- MCMCvis::MCMCsummary(samples.rjags,params=c("mu.alpha","eps.plot","sigma.plot","sigma.block","eps.block"))
sum.rjags

sum.R2jags2 <- MCMCvis::MCMCsummary(samples.R2jags,params=c("mu.alpha","eps.plot","sigma.plot","sigma.block","eps.block"))
sum.R2jags2

Here is the output from an rjags fit:

                     mean         sd         2.5%         50%       97.5% Rhat n.eff
mu.alpha      0.07858079 21.2186737 -48.99286669 -0.04046538 45.16440893 1.11  4063
eps.plot[1]  -1.77570813  0.8605892  -3.45736942 -1.77762035 -0.02258692 1.00  2857
eps.plot[2]  -0.37359614  0.8614370  -2.07913650 -0.37581522  1.36611635 1.00  2846
eps.plot[3]   0.43387001  0.8612820  -1.24273657  0.42332033  2.20253810 1.00  2833
eps.plot[4]   1.31279883  0.8615840  -0.38750596  1.31179143  3.06307745 1.00  2673
eps.plot[5]  -1.34317034  0.8749558  -3.06843578 -1.34747145  0.44451006 1.00  2664
eps.plot[6]  -0.40064738  0.8749104  -2.13233876 -0.41530587  1.37910977 1.00  2677
eps.plot[7]   0.36515253  0.8738092  -1.35364716  0.35784379  2.15597251 1.00  2692
eps.plot[8]   1.71826293  0.8765952  -0.01057452  1.70627507  3.50314147 1.00  2650
sigma.plot    1.67540914  0.6244529   0.88895789  1.53080631  3.27418094 1.01   741
sigma.block  19.54287007 26.1348353   0.14556791  6.68959552 93.21927035 1.22    94
eps.block[1] -0.55924545 21.2126905 -46.34099332 -0.24261169 48.81435107 1.11  4009
eps.block[2]  0.35658731 21.2177540 -44.65998407  0.25801739 49.31921639 1.11  4457

and here is the output from an R2jags fit:

                   mean         sd         2.5%         50%       97.5% Rhat n.eff
mu.alpha     -0.09358847 19.9972601 -45.81215297 -0.03905447 47.32288503 1.04  1785
eps.plot[1]  -1.70448172  0.8954054  -3.41749845 -1.70817566  0.08187877 1.00  1141
eps.plot[2]  -0.30070570  0.8940527  -2.01982416 -0.30458798  1.46954632 1.00  1125
eps.plot[3]   0.50295713  0.8932038  -1.20985348  0.50458106  2.29271214 1.01  1156
eps.plot[4]   1.37862742  0.8950657  -0.34965321  1.37627777  3.19545411 1.01  1142
eps.plot[5]  -1.40421696  0.8496819  -3.10743244 -1.41880218  0.25843323 1.01  1400
eps.plot[6]  -0.45810643  0.8504694  -2.16755579 -0.47087931  1.20827684 1.01  1406
eps.plot[7]   0.30319019  0.8492508  -1.39045509  0.28668886  1.96325582 1.01  1500
eps.plot[8]   1.65474420  0.8500635  -0.03632306  1.63399429  3.29585024 1.01  1395
sigma.plot    1.66375532  0.6681285   0.88231891  1.49564854  3.45544415 1.04   304
sigma.block  20.64694333 23.0418085   0.41071589 11.10308188 85.56459886 1.09    78
eps.block[1] -0.45810120 19.9981027 -46.85060339 -0.33090743 46.27709625 1.04  1795
eps.block[2]  0.58896195 19.9552211 -46.39310677  0.28183123 46.57874408 1.04  1769

Here are trace plots for mu.alpha from the 2 fits. First, from the rjags fit:

Second, from the R2jags fit:

While part of the issue is related to a lack of convergence for mu.alpha, another issue is how both packages determine the number of samples to collect from the posterior distribution. Additionally, the update call after jags.model should be:

update(jm, n.iter = n.update)

instead of

update(jm, n.iterations = n.update)

For rjags you can pretty easily specify the number of adaptation steps, update steps, and iteration steps. Looking at samples.rjags it is quite clear that each chain has a posterior of length n.iterations, for a total of (in this example) 3000 samples (n.iterations * n.chains). Conversely, R2jags::jags will sample the posterior a number of times equal to the n.iter argument minus the n.burnin argument. So, as you have specified this you have 1) not included the n.update steps into R2jags::jags and 2) only sampled the posterior a total of 1500 times (each chain only keeps 500 samples) compared to 3000 times from rjags.

If you wanted do a similar burn-in and sample the same number of times you could instead run:

samples.R2jags <-jags(
  data=data,
  inits=inits,
  parameters.to.save=parsToMonitor,
  model.file=textConnection(modelString),
  n.thin=n.thin,
  n.chains=length(inits),
  n.burnin=n.adapt + n.update ,
  n.iter=n.iterations +n.update + n.adapt,
  DIC=T
)

Finally, R2jags loads the glm module by default while rjags does not. This could potentially cause some discrepancies as the samplers that get used are likely different (at least in this case because you are fitting a glm). You could load the glm module with a rjags::load.module('glm') call before calling jags.model.

And while this is not related to the question, per se, I would avoid you i in your for loops within the model for each loop (use a different letter if the number of iterations varies among loops):

modelString <- "model { 
  ## Priors

  # hyperpriors
  mu.alpha ~ dnorm(0, 0.0001)

  sigma.plot ~ dunif(0,100) 
  tau.plot <- 1 / sigma.plot^2

  sigma.block ~ dunif(0,100) 
  tau.block <- 1 / sigma.block^2

  # priors 
  for(i in 1:N.plots){     
    eps.plot[i]~dnorm(0,tau.plot)
  }

  for(j in 1:N.blocks){
    eps.block[j]~dnorm(0,tau.block)
  }

  # Likelihood
  for(k in 1:N){
    logit(p[k]) <- mu.alpha + eps.plot[plot[k]] + eps.block[block[k]]
    y[k] ~ dbin(p[k], n[k])

  }
}"