similar to: issue with L-BFGS-B in optim (optim just hangs)

Hello list, I was hoping I could get some help on something which is really giving me a headache. I am using R version 2.14.1 (2011-12-22) (Platform: x86_64-pc-mingw32/x64 (64-bit)) An object which is supposed to have times has a few elements listed as not times but NA's > ls() [1] "todelete" > class(todelete) [1] "POSIXlt" "POSIXt" > todelete [1]

Hi all, I have a server where I allow some people to do SSH port forwarding for SVN, GIT, since I need to do that to access these services in certain locations. I can't access SVN ports in some work locations. Thing is, I also give specific access to some user accounts, mainly git and svn user, to some people I don't fully trust to have access to my VNC server, which is without password

Dear both, I have found that names are not treated in the same way in optim() depending on the optimization method (argument method). The example below shows the difference between the Brent method and the L-BFGS-B method. f <- function(x){ y <- x^2;names(y) <-"f(x)";y} optim(10, f, method="Brent", lower=-1, upper=10)$value optim(10, f, method="L-BFGS-B",

I had this working on an older version, since 2.6.9 that when I set --delete and --dry-run, I get no "Deleting ******" lines. Also, the --delete-before never worked for me. Working on a space constrained mirror, this has proven very handy, when it works. What's up with the new versions? I haven't changed a thing. Best regards, Tiago Marques

Optim's Nelder-Mead works correctly for this example. > optim(par=10, fn=fn, method="Nelder-Mead") x=10, ret=100.02 (memory) x=11, ret=121 (calculate) x=9, ret=81 (calculate) x=8, ret=64 (calculate) x=6, ret=36 (calculate) x=4, ret=16 (calculate) x=0, ret=0 (calculate) x=-4, ret=16 (calculate) x=-4, ret=16 (memory) x=2, ret=4 (calculate) x=-2, ret=4 (calculate) x=1, ret=1

Dear kind R-experts. Does anybody have an experience to use optim function? If yes, what is the main difference between two method "BFGS" vs "L-BFGS-B"? I used "BFGS" method and got what I wanted. But when I used "L-BFGS-B" the error message said that "L-BFGS-B needs finite values of fn". So that means "BFGS" method can handle even if fn

Yes, I think you are right. I was at first confused by the fact that after the optim() call, > environment(fn)$xx [1] 10 > environment(fn)$ret [1] 100.02 so not 9.999, but this could come from x being assigned the final value without calling fn. -pd > On 3 May 2019, at 11:58 , Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> wrote: > > Your results below make it look like a

Hi, This is the full message that i'm getting: reverse mapping checking getaddrinfo for ***.***.***.*** failed - POSSIBLE BREAK-IN ATTEMPT I've searched google but didn't found any good answer about this. What exactly is happening? Best regards, Tiago Marques

The the use of optim with the L-BFGS-B method for the following simple function gives erroneous results. Any help appreciated! Best, Bob Reilly # Code: V=function(p){ p1=p[1];p2=p[2] y=p1*p2-.4*(p1+p2) return(-y)} p=c(.2,.2) # p=c(.8,.8) max=optim(p,V,method = "L-BFGS-B",lower=c(0,0),upper=c(1,1)) max1=optim(max$par,V,method = "L-BFGS-B",lower=c(0,0),upper=c(1,1))

Hi. I just noticed the paper by Morales and Nocedal Remark on "Algorithm 778: L-BFGS-B: Fortran Subroutines for Large-Scale Bound Constrained Optimization". TOMS 2011; 38(1): 7 http://www.ece.northwestern.edu/~morales/PSfiles/acm-remark.pdf which describes a couple of improvements (speed and accuracy) to the original Netlib code which AFAICT is that still used by optim() via f2c.

Dear R-help list, I am working on an optimization with R by evaluating a likelihood function that contains lots of Gamma calculations (BGNBD: Hardie Fader Lee 2005 Management Science). Since I am forced to implement lower bounds for the four parameters included in the model, I chose the optim() function mith L-BFGS-B as method. But the likelihood often returns inf-values which L-BFGS-B

Hi, When using method L-BFGS-B along with a parscale argument, should the lower and upper bounds provided be on the scaled or unscaled values? Thanks. Cheers, -- Seb

Hello: The development version of Ecdat on R-Forge contains a vignette in which optim(?, method=?L-BFGS-B?) stops with an error message while violating the lower bound. To see all the details, try the following: install.packages("Ecdat", repos="http://R-Forge.R-project.org") Then do "help(pac=Ecdat)" -> "User guides, package

Dear all, when using optim() for a function that uses the parent environment, I see the following unexpected behavior: makeFn <- function(){ ??? xx <- ret <- NA ??? fn <- function(x){ ?????? if(!is.na(xx) && x==xx){ ?????????? cat("x=", xx, ", ret=", ret, " (memory)", fill=TRUE, sep="") ?????????? return(ret) ?????? } ?????? xx

Hi, R guys: I'm using L-BFGS-B method of optim for minimization problem. My function called besselI function which need non-negative parameter and the besselI will overflow if the parameter is too large. So I set the constraint box which is reasonable for my problem. But the point outside the box was test, and I got error. My program and the error follows. This program depends on CircStats

Hello, I've just a little problem using the function optim. Here is the function I want to optimize : test_function(x){(exp(-0.06751 + 0.25473*((x[1]-350)/150) + 0.04455*((x[2]-40)/20) + 0.09399*((x[3]-400)/100) - 0.17238*((x[4]-250)/50)- 0.45984*((x[5]-550)/150)-0.39508*((x[1]-350)/150)* ((x[1]-350)/150) - 0.05116*((x[2]-40)/20)* ((x[2]-40)/20) - 0.27735*((x[3]-400)/100)*((x[3]-400)/100) -

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

On 03/05/2019 10:31, Serguei Sokol wrote: > On 02/05/2019 21:35, Florian Gerber wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> when using optim() for a function that uses the parent environment, I >> see the following unexpected behavior: >> >> makeFn <- function(){ >> ???? xx <- ret <- NA >> ???? fn <- function(x){ >> ??????? if(!is.na(xx)

Full_Name: Jörg Polzehl Version: 1.5.1 OS: Windows 2000 Submission from: (NULL) (193.175.148.198) When calculating MLE's in a variance component model using constrained optimization, i.e. optim(...,method="L-BFGS-B",...) I observed an inproper behaviour in cases where the likelihood function was evalueted at the constraint. Parameters and value of the function at the constraint

Hi all, I am trying to find estimates for 7 parameters of a model which should fit real data. I have a function for the negative log likelihood (NLL) of the data. With optim(method="L-BFGS-B",lower=0) I am now minimizing the NLL to find the best fitting parameters. My problem is that the algorithm does not converge for certain data sets. I have read that one should scale the fn