# Covariate impact on the ratio of dependent variables in BRMS multivariate model

**URL:** <https://discourse.mc-stan.org/t/covariate-impact-on-the-ratio-of-dependent-variables-in-brms-multivariate-model/40811>\
**Category:** Modeling\
**Tags:** specification, brms\
**Created:** [January 12, 2026, 6:41pm UTC](https://discourse.mc-stan.org/t/covariate-impact-on-the-ratio-of-dependent-variables-in-brms-multivariate-model/40811 "2026-01-12T18:41:13Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nswartwo](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/discourse.mc-stan.org/nswartwo/32/20554_2.png) [@nswartwo](https://discourse.mc-stan.org/u/nswartwo)\
**Post date:** [January 12, 2026, 6:41pm UTC](https://discourse.mc-stan.org/t/covariate-impact-on-the-ratio-of-dependent-variables-in-brms-multivariate-model/40811/1 "2026-01-12T18:41:13Z")

</div>

I am using a multivariate specification in brms to model two correlated outcomes, (y\_1, y\_2) jointly. However, the outcome of interest is actually y\_1/y\_2, which is calculated after model run. I am interested in estimating the relationship between a covariate, c\_1 on the ratio y\_1/y\_2. I have added this covariate into the multivariate model for y\_1, and y\_2, which results in two coefficients: y\_1\_c\_1 y\_2\_c\_1. How can I use this information to estimate y\_1/y\_2\_c\_1?

Unfortunately, I cannot share my data here, however, I have built an example which builds off of Paul Bürkner’s vingette on multivariate models. Not sure that it maps to any outcome of interest in reality, but the data provide a vehicle to describe my goal.

* * *

```no-highlight
## Read in the data
data("BTdata", package = "MCMCglmm")

## Model for y1 (tarsus) 
m1 <- bf(tarsus ~ hatchdate + (1 | p | fosternest))

## Model for y2 (back)
m2 <- bf(back ~ hatchdate + (1 | p | fosternest))

## Fit the model 
fit <- brm(
    m1 + m2 + set_rescor(FALSE),
    data = BTdata, chains = 2, cores = 2,
    control = list(adapt_delta = 0.95)
)

## Print model summary
summary(fit)

## Add draws 
estimates <- add_epred_draws(object = fit,
                             newdata=BTdata)

## Calculate the ratio of tarsus to back 
estimateSummary <- estimates %>%
    pivot_wider(names_from = .category, 
                names_prefix = "mod_",
                values_from = .epred) %>%
    mutate(ratio = mod_tarsus / mod_back) %>% 
    ungroup() %>%
    mean_qi(ratio, na.rm=T)
    
### How to estimate the relationship between hatchdate on ratio? 

```

* * *

Thank you.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![vincentarelbundock](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/discourse.mc-stan.org/vincentarelbundock/32/17365_2.png) [@vincentarelbundock](https://discourse.mc-stan.org/u/vincentarelbundock)\
**Post date:** [January 14, 2026, 1:32am UTC](https://discourse.mc-stan.org/t/covariate-impact-on-the-ratio-of-dependent-variables-in-brms-multivariate-model/40811/2 "2026-01-14T01:32:44Z")

</div>

One option would be to (1) create a counterfactual dataset with different values of your treatment variable, (2) predict the outcome for each row under both counterfactual conditions, (3) aggregate draws from the posterior distribution to compute the quantity of interest.

Here’s an example using the `marginaleffects` package. It may not be exactly what you need, but perhaps it gives you some ideas:

```no-highlight
library(dplyr)
library(marginaleffects)

# create counterfactual data
nd = transform(BTdata, id = 1:nrow(BTdata), treatment = "low")
nd = rbind(nd, transform(nd, treatment = "high", hatchdate = hatchdate + 1))

# predict both outcomes
predictions(fit, newdata = nd) |>
    # extract draws from posterior distribution
    get_draws() |>
    # manipulate predictions to compute the difference in average ratios
    summarize(ratio = draw[2] / draw[1], .by = c(id, drawid, treatment)) |>
    summarize(avg_ratio = mean(ratio, .by = treatment)) |>
    summarize(change_in_avg_ratio = mean(avg_ratio))

```

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nswartwo](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/discourse.mc-stan.org/nswartwo/32/20554_2.png) [@nswartwo](https://discourse.mc-stan.org/u/nswartwo)\
**Post date:** [March 6, 2026, 6:08pm UTC](https://discourse.mc-stan.org/t/covariate-impact-on-the-ratio-of-dependent-variables-in-brms-multivariate-model/40811/3 "2026-03-06T18:08:17Z")

</div>

> [@vincentarelbundock](#):
>
> `hatchdate`

Thank you so much for this well written answer. But my only concern is the fact that this is using the draws directly from the posterior predictive distribution, not the _expectation_ of the posterior predictive distribution. Since I’m interested in the marginal effect (the average impact across all levels of the random effect, in this case fosternest), wouldn’t I need to use a function that accounts for that? I think that `avg_predictions` handles marginal effects, so I’d sub that in for `predictions` and then proceed as you’ve written.

I hadn’t looked into marginaleffects package until this post, so thank you!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![jsocolar](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/discourse.mc-stan.org/jsocolar/32/2486_2.png) [@jsocolar](https://discourse.mc-stan.org/u/jsocolar)\
**Post date:** [March 6, 2026, 11:10pm UTC](https://discourse.mc-stan.org/t/covariate-impact-on-the-ratio-of-dependent-variables-in-brms-multivariate-model/40811/4 "2026-03-06T23:10:47Z")

</div>

When both `back` and `tarsus` are linearly related to `hatchdate`, then except in very special cases it will not be true that the ratio `back / tarsus` is linearly related to `hatchdate`. Moreover the influence of `hatchdate` will depend on the value of the random effect term, and it will depend nonlinearly on the value of the random effect term. To make a statement about how much the `back / tarsus` ratio varies due to a change in `hatchdate`, you need to choose a value of `hatchdate` where you are interested in making the statement, and then you need to choose if you want an average value across all levels of the random effect (weighted or unweighted by their frequency in the data), or something else.