similar to: ML-Fit for truncated distributions

Hello, I tried to fit a lognormal distribution by using optim. But sadly the output seems to be incorrect. Who can tell me where the "bug" is? test = rlnorm(100,5,3) logL = function(parm, x,...) -sum(log(dlnorm(x,parm,...))) start = list(meanlog=5, sdlog=3) optim(start,logL,x=test)$par Carsten. [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Hello, I've the following setting: (1) Data from a source without truncation (x) (2) Data from an other source with left-truncation at threshold u (xu) I have to fit a model on these these two sources, thereby I assume that both are "drawn" from the same distribution (eg lognormal). In a MLE I would sum the densities and maximize. The R-Function could be:

Hi , I am trying to get some estimator based on lognormal distribution when we have left,interval, and right censored data. Since, there is now avalible pakage in R can help me in this, I had to write my own code using Newton Raphson method which requires first and second derivative of log likelihood but my problem after runing the code is the estimators were too high. with this email ,I provide

Hi, I am trying to get the maximum likelihood estimator for lognormal distribution with censored data;when we have left, interval and right censord. I built my code in R, by writing the deriving of log likelihood function and using newton raphson method but my estimators were too high " overestimation", where the values exceed the 1000 in some runing of my code. is there any one can

Dear All, I have two questions regarding distribution fitting. I have several datasets, all left-truncated at x=1, that I am attempting to fit distributions to (lognormal, weibull and exponential). I had been using fitdistr in the MASS package as follows: fitdistr<-(x,"weibull") However, this does not take into consideration the truncation at x=1. I read another posting in this

Hi R lovers Here is a numerical vector test > test [1] 206 53 124 112 92 77 118 75 48 176 90 74 107 126 99 84 114 147 99 114 99 84 99 99 99 99 99 104 1 159 100 53 [33] 132 82 85 106 136 99 110 82 99 99 89 107 99 68 130 99 99 110 99 95 153 93 136 51 103 95 99 72 99 50 110 37 [65] 102 104 92 90 94 99 76 81 109 91 98 96 104 104 93 99 125 89

Dear ALL I have a list of data below 0.80010 0.72299 0.69893 0.99597 0.89200 0.69312 0.73613 1.13559 0.85009 0.85804 0.73324 1.04826 0.84002 1.76330 0.71980 0.89416 0.89450 0.98670 0.83571 0.73833 0.66549 0.93641 0.80418 0.95285 0.76876 0.82588 1.09394 1.00195 1.14976 0.80008 1.11947 1.09484 0.81494 0.68696 0.82364 0.84390 0.71402 0.80293 1.02873 all of them are ninty. Nowaday, i try to find a

Hello R-Experts, I want to calculate values like 15^200 or 17^300 in R. In normal case it can calculate the small values of b (a^b). I have fixed width = 10000 and digits = 22 but still answers are Inf. How to deal the cases like these? Thanks in advance. Regards, rehena [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

I am trying to fit a lognormal distribution to a set of data and test its goodness of fit with regard to predicted values. I managed to get so far: > y <- c(2,6,2,3,6,7,6,10,11,6,12,9,15,11,15,8,9,12,6,5) > library(MASS) > fitdistr(y,"lognormal",start=list(meanlog=0.1,sdlog=0.1)) meanlog sdlog 1.94810515 0.57091032 (0.12765945) (0.09034437) But I would

* fitdistr? * it seems unusual (to me) to fit directly to the data with lognormal... fitting a normal to the log of the data seems more in keeping with the assumptions associated with that distribution. -- Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity. On July 10, 2017 7:27:47 AM PDT, PIKAL Petr <petr.pikal at precheza.cz> wrote: >Dear all > >I am struggling to fit data which form

Dear all I am struggling to fit data which form something like CDF by lognorm. Here are my data: proc <- c(0.9, 0.84, 0.5, 0.16, 0.1) size <- c(0.144, 0.172, 0.272, 0.481, 0.583) plot(size, proc, xlim=c(0,1), ylim=c(0,1)) fit<-nls(proc~SSfpl(size, 1, 0, xmid, scal), start=list(xmid=0.2, scal=.1)) lines(seq(0,1,.01), predict(fit, newdata=data.frame(sito=seq(0,1,.01))), col=2) I tried

Hi! I have following data which is left truncated say at 10. I am trying to estimate the parameters of the Truncated Lognormal distribution to this data as given below. (I have referred to R code appearing in an earlier post - http://finzi.psych.upenn.edu/Rhelp10/2008-October/176136.html) library(MASS) x <- c(600.62,153.05,70.26,530.42,3440.29,97.45,174.51,168.47, 116.63,36.51, 219.77,

Hi all, I'm using the function "fitdistr" (library MASS) to fit a distribution to given data. What I have to do further, is getting the log-Likelihood-Value from this estimation. Is there any simple possibility to realize it? Regards, Carsten

Dear All I am trying to replicate a numerical application (not computed on R) from an article. Using, ks.test() I computed the exact D value shown in the article but the p-values I obtain are quite different from the one shown in the article. The tests are performed on a sample of 37 values (please see "[0] DATA" below) for truncated Exponential, Pareto and truncated LogNormal

I am trying to fit a lognormal distribution on interval-censored data. Some of my intervals have a lower bound of zero. Unfortunately, it seems like survreg() cannot deal with lower bounds of zero, despite the fact that plnorm(0)==0 and pnorm(-Inf)==0 are well defined. Below is a short example to reproduce the problem. Does anyone know why survreg() must behave that way? Is there an alternate

Hello, I want to fit a tree parameter distribution to given data. I tried it with sample data using the "fitdistr" function. Here my workflow that didn't had any result: I started with the generalized gamma distr, which is: r*dgamma(x^r,shape,rate) The R-function is: ggamma = function (x,r,shape,rate) r*dgamma(x^r,shape,rate=rate) For the first step I assumed r = 1 and I

Hi R lovers! I'd like to know how to use the parameter 'start' in the function fitdistr() obviously I have to provide the initial value of the parameter to optimize except in the case of a certain set of given distribution Indeed according to the help file for fitdistr " For the following named distributions, reasonable starting values will be computed if `start'

Dear List, I have read that a lognormal mixture model having a pdf of the form f(x)=w1*f1(x)+(1-w1)*f2(x) fits most data sets quite well, where f1 and f2 are lognormal distributions. Any pointers on how to create a function that would produce the 5 parameters of f(x) would be greatly appreciated. > version _ platform i386-pc-mingw32 arch i386 os

Hello, I want to find the parameters mu and sigma that minimize the following function. It's important, that mu and sigma are strictly positive. ----------------- optimiere = function(fmean,smean,d,x,mu,sigma) { merk = c() for (i in 1:length(d)) merk=c(merk,1/(d[i]^2)*(d[i]-1/(fmean*(1-plnorm(x[i],mu,sigma))))^2) return(sum(merk)) } ----------------- To do that I'm using the nlm

Hi, I have some data, that when plotted looks very close to a log-normal distribution. My goal is to build a regression model to test how this variable responds to several independent variables. To do this, I want to use the fitdistr tool from the MASS package to see how well my data fits the actual distribution, and also build a generalized linear model using the glm command. The summary