similar to: 'optim' and extra argument to the objective function

Dear R user I follow the steps defined in Modern applied statistics page(453) to use optim. However, when I run the following code the parameters seems way off and the third parameter(p3) stayed as the initial value. below is the code: ## data da=c(418,401,416,360,411,425,537,379,484,388,486,380,394,363,405,383,392,363,398,526) ### initial values pars=c(392.25, 507.25, 0.80)

Hello! I am getting the following errors when running optim() [I tried optim() with 3 different methods as you can see]: Error in optim(c(0.66, 0.999, 0.064), pe, NULL, method = "L-BFGS-B") : objective function in optim evaluates to length 6 not 1 > out <- optim( c(0.66, 0.999, 0.064), pe, NULL, method = "Nelder-Mead") Error in optim(c(0.66, 0.999, 0.064),

I'm trying to calculate the maximum likelihood estimate for a binomial distribution. Here is my code: y <- c(2, 4, 2, 4, 5, 3) n <- length(y) binomial.ll <- function (pi, y, n) { ## define log-likelihood output <- y*log(pi)+(n-y)*(log(1-pi)) return(output) } binomial.mle <- optim(0.01, ## starting value binomial.ll,

I have a Master's student working on a project which involves estimating parameters of a certain model via maximum likelihood, with the maximization being done via optim(). A phenomenon has occurred which I am at a loss to explain. If we use certain pairs of starting values for optim(), it simply returns those values as the ``optimal'' values, although they are definitely not

Having worked with optim() and related programs for years, it surprised me that I haven't noticed this before, but optim() is inconsistent in how it deals with bounds constraints specified at infinity. Here's an example: # optim-glitch-Ex.R x0<-c(1,2,3,4) fnt <- function(x, fscale=10){ yy <- length(x):1 val <- sum((yy*x)^2)*fscale } grt <- function(x, fscale=10){ nn

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'm looking for advice on manipulating parameters that are going to be passed through to another function. Specifically, I am working on my version of "mle", which is a wrapper for optim (among other optimizers). I would prefer not to replicate the entire argument list of optim(), so I'm using ... to pass extra arguments through. However: the starting values are

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) -

The R function "optim" fails when a function requires additional arguments, if the option "hessian=T" is specified. I am using R Version 1.0.0 on Windows 98. Here is an example of the Rosenbrock Banana function from the optim help example, with the function and gradient modified to take an additonal argument. Note that the call to optim works fine unless a hessian is

Dear useRs, I have just discovered that the R optim function does not return the number of iterations. I still wonder why line 632-634 of optim C, the iter variable is not returned (for the BFGS method for example) ? Is there any trick to compute the iteration number with function call number? Kind regards Christophe -- Christophe Dutang Ph.D. student at ISFA, Lyon, France website:

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))

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.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >

> hi all, > I am using optim. I am getting the following error message: > > Error in optim(par = start.vals[, h], fn = post.func.pois, gr = post.grad. > pois, : > L-BFGS-B needs finite values of fn > > If I look at optim typing '> optim' it seems that the error comes from > inside .Internal(optim), so I wonder how can I see the code for .Internal(

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

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

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",

Hi, my call of optim() with the L-BFGS-B method ended with the following error message: ERROR: ABNORMAL_TERMINATION_IN_LNSRCH Further tracing shows: Line search cannot locate an adequate point after 20 function and gradient evaluations final value 0.086627 stopped after 7 iterations Could someone pls tell me whether it is possible to increase the limit of 20 evaluations? Is it even worth

Hi, I am currently trying to execute the following command: f<-factanal(factors=k$Components$nparallel,covmat=m,n.obs=2287,rotation="varimax",control=list(opt=list(method=c("BFGS")))) but keep getting the error: L-BFGS-B needs finite values of 'fn' I can't figure out what I am doing wrong here, why isn't optim being told to use BFGS instead of L-BFGS-B...

Hello, I have a dataset d which is >d pop catch 1 66462.01 10807.757 2 87486.73 46257.885 3 57211.64 9345.058 4 71321.62 4892.868 5 100024.89 27334.248 6 104504.91 48535.092 7 95295.51 39348.195 8 93737.35 34343.489 9 89375.05 28750.743 10 95312.65 30755.064 11 100888.17 55404.370 12 84790.23 37751.074 13 81129.82 29277.443 14 69797.09 21500.398

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