similar to: for help about MLE in R

Hi R-friends, Attached is the SAS XPORT file that I have imported into R using following code library(foreign) mydata<-read.xport("C:\\ctf.xpt") print(mydata) I am trying to maximize logL in order to find Maximum Likelihood Estimate (MLE) of 5 parameters (alpha1, beta1, alpha2, beta2, p) using NLM function in R as follows. # Defining Log likelihood - In the function it is noted as

I am trying to do a MLE fit of the weibull to some data, which I attach. fitweibull<-function() { rt<-scan("r/rt/data2/triam1.dat") rt<-sort(rt) plot(rt,ppoints(rt)) a<-9 b<-.27 fn<-function(p) -sum( log(dweibull(rt,p[1],p[2])) ) cat("starting -log like=",fn(c(a,b)),"\n") out<-nlm(fn,p=c(a,b), hessian=TRUE)

Simple-mindedly I tried getting MLE and SE for one-parameter model in the same way as for multi-param models. out<-nlm(fn,p=c(2),hessian=T) But sqrt(diag(solve(out$hessian))) gives the answer 1. The Hessian has only one entry, not really a matrix. diag(x) gives 1 if x is just a single number. Is this what I should be doing to get SE for MLE? sqrt(solve(out$hessian)) Thanks very much for

Simple-mindedly I tried getting MLE and SE for one-parameter model in the same way as for multi-param models. out<-nlm(fn,p=c(2),hessian=T) But sqrt(diag(solve(out$hessian))) gives the answer 1. The Hessian has only one entry, not really a matrix. diag(x) gives 1 if x is just a single number. Is this what I should be doing to get SE for MLE? sqrt(solve(out$hessian)) Thanks very much for

In the course of revising a paper I have had occasion to attempt to maximize a rather complicated log likelihood using the function nlm(). This is at the demand of a referee who claims that this will work better than my proposed use of a home- grown implementation of the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm. I have run into serious hiccups in attempting to apply nlm(). If I provide gradient and

GENERAL REFERENCE ON NONLINEAR OPTIMIZATION? What are your favorite references on nonlinear optimization? I like Bates and Watts (1988) Nonlinear Regression Analysis and Its Applications (Wiley), especially for its key insights regarding parameter effects vs. intrinsic curvature. Before I spent time and money on several of the refences cited on the help pages for "optim",

I've been working on a new package and I have a few questions regarding the behaviour of the nlm function. I've been (for better or worse) using the nlm function to fit a linear model without suppling the hessian or gradient attributes in the objective function. I'm curious as to why the nlm requires 31 iterations (for the linear model), and then it doesn't work when I try to add

Hello R Community, I've been run the following codes. However, I've been getting an unusual segfault that I'm unable to trace its origin. Please give me a light to decipher the "caught segfault" Thanks for you attention. Bernardo. > options(STERM='iESS', editor='emacsclient') > rm(list = ls()) > > source("fgenIGLD.R") #RNG

Hi R-help! I'm trying to understand how R's nlm function updates its estimate of the Hessian matrix. The Dennis/Schnabel book cited in the references presents a number of different ways to do this, and seems to conclude that the positive-definite secant method (BFGS) works best in practice (p201). However, when I run my code through the optim function with the method as "BFGS",

I'm trying to fit a Weibull distribution to some data via maximum likelihood estimation. I'm following the procedure described by Doug Bates in his "Using Open Source Software to Teach Mathematical Statistics" but I keep getting warnings about NaNs being converted to maximum positive value: > llfunc <- function (x) { -sum(dweibull(AM,shape=x[1],scale=x[2], log=TRUE))} >

hello all, I am getting wrong estimates from this code. do you know what could be the problem. thanks x<- c(1.6, 1.7, 1.7, 1.7, 1.8, 1.8, 1.8, 1.8) y <- c( 6, 13, 18, 28, 52, 53, 61, 60) n <- c(59, 60, 62, 56, 63, 59, 62, 60) DF <- data.frame(x, y, n) # note: there is no need to have the choose(n, y) term in the likelihood fn <- function(p, DF) { z <- p[1]+p[2]*DF$x

Hi, R developers. when running mle inside a loop I found a nasty behavior. From time to time, my model had a degenerate minimum and the loop just crashed. I tracked it down to "vcov <- if (length(coef)) solve(oout$hessian)" line, being the hessian singular. Note that the minimum reached was good, it just did not make sense to calculate the covariance matrix as the inverse of a

Dear expeRts, first of all I'd like to thank you for the quick help on my last which() problem. Here is another one I could not tackle: I have data on an absorption measurement which I want to fit with an voigt profile: fn.1 <- function(p){ for (i1 in ilong){ ff <- f[i1] ex[i1] <- exp(S*n*L*voigt(u,v,ff,p[1],p[2],p[3])[[1]]) } sum((t-ex)^2) } out <-

Hi, dear R users I am a newbie in R and I wantto use the method of meximum likelihood to fit a Weibull distribution to my survival data. I use "optim" as follows: optim(c(1, 0.25),weibull.like,mydata=mydata,method="L-BFGS-B",hessian = TRUE) My question is: how do I setup the constraints so that the two parametrs of Weibull to be pisotive? Or should I use other function

This practical problem in maximum likelihood estimation must be encountered quite a bit. What do you do when a data point has a probability that comes out in numerical evaluation to zero? In calculating the log likelihood you then have a log(0) problem. Here is a simple example (probit) which illustrates the problem: x<-c(1,2,3,4,100) ntrials<-100 yes<-round(ntrials*pnorm((x-3)/1))

Hello: Below is a toy logistic regression problem. When I wrote my own code, Newton-Raphson converged in three iterations using both the gradient and the Hessian and the starting values given below. But I can't get nlm() to work! I would much appreciate any help. > x [1] 10.2 7.7 5.1 3.8 2.6 > y [1] 9 8 3 2 1 > n [1] 10 9 6 8 10 derfs4=function(b,x,y,n) {

Dear UseRs, I wrote the following function to use MLE. --------------------------------------------- mlog <- function(theta, nx = 1, nz = 1, dt){ beta <- matrix(theta[1:(nx+1)], ncol = 1) delta <- matrix(theta[(nx+2):(nx+nz+1)], ncol = 1) sigma2 <- theta[nx+nz+2] gamma <- theta[nx+nz+3] y <- as.matrix(dt[, 1], ncol = 1) x <- as.matrix(data.frame(1,

I have a question about passing arguments to the function f that nlm minimizes. I have no problems if I do this: x<-seq(0,1,.1) y<-1.1*x + (1-1.1) + rnorm(length(x),0,.1) fn<-function(p) { yhat<-p*x+(1-p) sum((y-yhat)^2) } out<-nlm(fn,p=1.5,hessian=TRUE) But I would like to define fn<-function(x,y,p) { yhat<-p*x+(1-p) sum((y-yhat)^2) } so

It would be really nice if nlm took a set of "..." optional arguments that were passed through to the objective function. This level of hacking is probably slightly beyond me: is there a reason it would be technically difficult/inefficient? (I have a vague memory that it used to work this way either in S-PLUS or in some previous version of R, but I could easily be wrong.) Here's

>>>>> "DougB" == Douglas Bates <bates@stat.wisc.edu> writes: DougB> ....... DougB> ....... { time comparisons in testing lme(..) for R } DougB> ....... DougB> This can be expected to run faster when a version of nlm that accepts DougB> gradients and Hessians is available. --- Doug, do I understand properly that it won't