similar to: Scaling in optimization

I have not included the previous postings because they came out very strangely on my mail reader. However, the question concerned the choice of minimizer for the zeroinfl() function, which apparently allows any of the current 6 methods of optim() for this purpose. The original poster wanted to use Newton-Raphson. Newton-Raphson (or just Newton for simplicity) is commonly thought to be the

I am using the function optim and I get the error message ABNORMAL_TERMINATION_IN_LNSRCH. Reason for this could be a scaling problem. Thus, I used parscale in order to scale the parameters. But I still have the error message. For example, with parscale=c(rep(1,n), 0.01,1,0.01): return(optim(c(mu1,b,k,phi), neg2loglikelihood, method = "L-BFGS-B",

Dear R-er, For a non-linear optimisation, I used optim() with BFGS method but it stopped regularly before to reach a true mimimum. It was not a problem with limit of iterations, just a local minimum. I was able sometimes to reach better minimum using several rounds of optim(). Then I moved to optimx() to do the different optim rounds automatically using "Nelder-Mead" and

Good afternoon everybody, I'm quite new in functions optimization on R and, whereas I've read lot's of function descriptions, I'm not sure of the correct settings for function like "optimx" and "nlminb". I'd like to minimize my parameters and the loglikelihood result of the function. My parameters are a mean distance of dispersion and a proportion of

Prof Nash, Prof Galanos Is it possible to use a generic code stub in front of packages that use optimx to improve optimx use or curtail it according to the requirements? Best Regards Amit +91 7899381263 ________________________________________________________________________ Please request Skype as available 5th Year FPM (Ph.D.) in Finance and Accounting Area Indian Institute

Hi all, I'm trying to figure out the effective differences between BFGS and L-BFGS-B are, besides the obvious that L-BFGS-B should be using a lot less memory, and the user can provide box constraints. 1) Why would you ever want to use BFGS, if L-BFGS-B does the same thing but use less memory? 2) If i'm optimizing with respect to a variable x that must be non-negative, a common approach

#optim package estimate<-optim(init.par,Linn,hessian=TRUE, method=c("L-BFGS-B"),control = list(trace=1,abstol=0.001),lower=c(0,0,0,0,-Inf,-Inf,-Inf,-Inf,-Inf,-Inf,-Inf,-Inf,-Inf),upper=c(1,1,1,1,Inf,Inf,Inf,Inf,Inf,Inf,Inf,Inf,Inf)) #nlminb package estimate<-nlminb(init.par,Linn,gr=NULL,hessian=TRUE,control =

Dear R users When I use OPTIMX with BFGS, I've got the following error message. ----------------------------------------------------------------- > optimx(par=theta0, fn=obj.fy, gr=gr.fy, method="BFGS") Error: Gradient function might be wrong - check it! ----------------------------------------------------------------- So, I checked and checked my gradient function line by

This is not about the failure on some platforms, which is an important issue. However, what is below may provide a temporary workaround until the source of the problem is uncovered. FWIW, the problem seems fairly straightforward for most optimizers at my disposal in the R-forge (developmental) version of the optimx package at https://r-forge.r-project.org/projects/optimizer/ I used the code ##

Dear R users When I use OPTIM with BFGS, I've got a significant result without an error message. However, when I use OPTIMX with BFGS( or spg), I've got the following an error message. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > optimx(par=theta0, fn=obj.fy, gr=gr.fy, method="BFGS", >

Dear R users I am trying to use OPTIMX(OPTIM) for nonlinear optimization. There is no error in my code but the results are so weird (see below). When I ran via OPTIM, the results are that Initial values are that theta0 = 0.6 1.6 0.6 1.6 0.7. (In fact true vales are 0.5,1.0,0.8,1.2, 0.6.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >

I was preparing a fix for a minor glitch in my optimx package and R CMD check gave an error that the title was not in title case. It is A Replacement and Extension of the optim() Function R CMD check suggests the incorrect form A Replacement and Extension of the Optim() Function 'Writing R Extensions' suggests single quotes, i.e., A Replacement and Extension of the 'optim()'

Thanks a lot to everybody that helped me out with this. Conclusions: (1) In order to edit arima in R: >fix(arima) or alternatively: >arima<-edit(arima) (2) This is not contained in the "Introduction to R" manual. (3) A "productive" fix of arima is attached (arma coefficients printed out and error catched so that it doesn't halt parent loops to search for

This is mainly a reminder to others developing R packages to be careful not to supply control list items that are not used by the called package. Optimx is a wrapper package that aims to provide a common syntax to a number of existing optimization packages. Recently in extending optimx package I inadvertently introduced a new control for optimx which is NOT in any of the wrapped optimization

Hi, Mark et al.: Thanks, Mark. Three comments: 1. Rvmmin was one of the methods I tried after Ravi directed me to optimx. It returned NAs for essentially everything. See my email of this subject stamped 4:43 PM Central time = 21:43 UTC. 2. It would be interesting to know if the current algorithm behind optim and optimx with

Hi everybody, I am using the L-BFGS-B method of the mle2() function to estimate the values of 6 parameters. mle2 uses the methods implemented in optim. As I got it from the descriptions available online, one can use the parscale parameter to tell R somehow what the values of the estimated parameters should be . . . Could somebody please help me understand what one has to do actually with the

Dear R helpers, I need to estimate a probit model with box constraints placed on several of the model parameters. I have the following two questions: 1) How are the standard errors calclulated in glm (family=binomial(link="probit")? I ran a typical probit model using the glm probit link and the nlminb function with my own coding of the loglikehood, separately. As nlminb does not

> On 25 Apr 2015, at 13:11 , Prof J C Nash (U30A) <nashjc at uottawa.ca> wrote: > > Hendrik pointed out it was the parentheses that gave the complaint. > Single quotes and no parentheses seem to satisfy R CMD check. Perhaps > that needs to be in the WRE. Well, it is in ?toTitleCase: ...However, unknown technical terms will be capitalized unless they are single

Hi, I have noticed that there is a change in the use of ellipses or . in R versions 2.6.1 and later. In versions 2.5.1 and earlier, the . were always at the end of the argument list, but in 2.6.1 they are placed after the main arguments and before method control arguments. This results in the user having to specify the exact (complete) names of the control arguments, i.e. partial matching is

I am having a problem with optim() using the "L-BFGS-B" method. When I set the lower limit for the third parameter equal to zero I get an error message: > low.lim.3 <- 0 > phi_opt <- optim(phi_, model_lik, NULL, method = "L-BFGS-B", lower=c(0.2, -100, low.lim.3, 0), upper= c(10, 100, 10, 10), control = list(maxit = 1000, parscale = c(0.2, u1, 0.002, 0.002), trace =