similar to: optim function : "BFGS" vs "L-BFGS-B"

Dear, R experts. Does anybody have experience with 'optim' function? I have an error message as the following. Error in optim(transcoefs, fn = hfdeviance, gr = hfdeviance.grad, method = "BFGS", : initial value in vmmin is not finite I want to make a comment when this happen. Is there way I can put *my* message after this error occur? Thanks in advance

Dear, R experts. I have two program codes, one is made by Splus and the other is made by transferring from Splus code. Because "nlminb" function in Splus is equivalent to "optim" in R, I expected to get exactly same result. But, sometime there is too large differece (greater than 2%) between two outputs. I looked two help files. According to those, in Splus, quasi-Newton

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-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, 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

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 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

Dear R-Help List, I am using optim, with method=L-BFGS-B, to maximize a likelihood inside a large simulation exercise. This runs fine for most simulated data sets, but for some reason, about 1 out of 100 times, optim will just hang. Using a dumb approach to the problem (i.e. printing the parameter values each time the function being maximized is evaluated), I tracked down when this happens,

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

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. 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.

I'm having some trouble with optim(method="L-BFGS-B"), and I'm not sure I have the ability to track down and fix what seem to be bugs within optim(). I'm bootstrapping an original data set and fitting a model to each bootstrapped data set. For some bootstrapped samples, optim() sets negative parameter values (despite the fact that I have explicitly set non-zero lower

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, 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) -

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)

With the exception of "L-BFGS-B", all of the other optim() methods return the value of the function when they are given a trivial function (i.e., one with no variable arguments) to optimize. I don't think this is a "bug" in L-BFGS-B (more like a response to an undefined condition), but it leads to a bug in stats4::mle -- a spurious error saying that a better fit has been

Hi all! I'm running some simulations and I need to estimate some paramaters with optim( ), in some cases optim stops with the next message: "L-BFGS-B needs finite values of 'fn' " I would like to know how to include and "if" condition when this happen, could it be something like: myfun <- optim(....) # run my function

Hi, When I run the following code, r <- c(3,4,4,3,5,4,5,9,8,11,12,13) n <- rep(15,12) x <- c(0, 1.1, 1.3, 2.0, 2.2, 2.8, 3.7, 3.9, 4.4, 4.8, 5.9, 6.8) x <- log10(x) fr <- function(c, alpha, beta) { P <- c + (1-c) * pnorm(alpha + beta * x) P <- pmax(pmin(P,1),0) -(sum(log(choose(n,r))) + sum(r * log(P)) + sum((n -r)* log(1-P))) } fit <- mle((fr), start = list(c

Dear R users, I am new to R. I would like to find *maximum likelihood estimators for psi and alpha* based on the following *log likelihood function*, c is consumption data comprising 148 entries: fn<-function(c,psi,alpha) { s1<-sum(for(i in 1:n){(c[i]-(psi^(-1/alpha)*(lag(c[i],-1))))^2* (lag(c[i],-1)^((-2)*(alpha+1)) )}); s2<- sum(for(m in 1:n){log(lag(c[m],-1)^(((2)*alpha)+2))});

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