similar to: Optim parscale?

Hi there, The optim(par, fn, ...parscale...) function in R requires 'parscale' which is defined as: "A vector of scaling values for the parameters. Optimisation is performed on 'par/parscale' and these should be comparable in the sense that a unit change in any element (??) produces a unit change in the scaled value". I am just not understanding the

Dear R users, I am running a maximum likelihood model with optim. I chose the simulated annealing method (method="SANN"). SANN is not performing bad, but I guess it would be much more effecive if I could set the `parscale' parameter. The help sais: `parscale' A vector of scaling values for the parameters. Optimization is performed on `par/parscale' and these

Thanks a lot to everybody that helped me out with this. Conclusions: (1) In order to edit arima in R: >fix(arima) or alternatively: >arima<-edit(arima) (2) This is not contained in the "Introduction to R" manual. (3) A "productive" fix of arima is attached (arma coefficients printed out and error catched so that it doesn't halt parent loops to search for

>>>>> peter dalgaard <pdalgd at gmail.com> >>>>> on Thu, 21 May 2015 11:03:05 +0200 writes: > On 21 May 2015, at 10:35 , Martin Maechler <maechler at lynne.stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote: >>> >>> I noticed that the 3.2.1 release cycle is about to start. Is there any >>> chance that this fix will make it into

Dear R-help, I'm using the 'optim' functions to minimise functions, and have read the documentation, but I'm still not sure how to determine sensible values to use for the 'fnscale' and 'parscale' options. If I have understood everything correctly, 'fnscale' should be used to scale the objective function, so that for example if the default is

> I noticed that the 3.2.1 release cycle is about to start. Is there any > chance that this fix will make it into the next version of R? > > This bug is fairly serious: getting the wrong variance estimate leads to > the wrong log-likelihood and the wrong AIC, BIC etc, which can and does > lead to suboptimal model selection. If it's not fixed, this issue will > affect

?optim says, in describing the control parameter, 'fnscale' An overall scaling to be applied to the value of 'fn' and 'gr' during optimization. If negative, turns the problem into a maximization problem. Optimization is performed on 'fn(par)/fnscale'. 'parscale' A vector of scaling values for the parameters.

I noticed that the 3.2.1 release cycle is about to start. Is there any chance that this fix will make it into the next version of R? This bug is fairly serious: getting the wrong variance estimate leads to the wrong log-likelihood and the wrong AIC, BIC etc, which can and does lead to suboptimal model selection. If it's not fixed, this issue will affect every student taking our time series

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

On 21 May 2015, at 10:35 , Martin Maechler <maechler at lynne.stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote: >> >> I noticed that the 3.2.1 release cycle is about to start. Is there any >> chance that this fix will make it into the next version of R? >> >> This bug is fairly serious: getting the wrong variance estimate leads to >> the wrong log-likelihood and the wrong

Dear R users, I am trying to figure out the control parameter in "optim," especially, "fnscale" and "parscale." In the R docu., ------------------------------------------------------ fnscale An overall scaling to be applied to the value of fn and gr during optimization. If negative, turns the problem into a maximization problem. Optimization is performed on

Hi everybody, I am using the L-BFGS-B method of the mle2() function to estimate the values of 6 parameters. mle2 uses the methods implemented in optim. As I got it from the descriptions available online, one can use the parscale parameter to tell R somehow what the values of the estimated parameters should be . . . Could somebody please help me understand what one has to do actually with the

On 21 May 2015, at 12:49 , Martin Maechler <maechler at lynne.stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote: >>>>>> peter dalgaard <pdalgd at gmail.com> >>>>>> on Thu, 21 May 2015 11:03:05 +0200 writes: > >> On 21 May 2015, at 10:35 , Martin Maechler <maechler at lynne.stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote: > >>>> >>>> I noticed that

Dear all, I?m having some problems getting optim with method="Nelder-Mead" to work properly. It seems like there is no way of controlling the step size, and the step size seems to depend on the *difference* between the initial values, which makes no sense. Example: f=function(xy, mu1, mu2) { print(xy) dnorm(xy[1]-mu1)*dnorm(xy[2]-mu2) } f1=function(xy) -f(xy, 0,

I am using the function optim and I get the error message ABNORMAL_TERMINATION_IN_LNSRCH. Reason for this could be a scaling problem. Thus, I used parscale in order to scale the parameters. But I still have the error message. For example, with parscale=c(rep(1,n), 0.01,1,0.01): return(optim(c(mu1,b,k,phi), neg2loglikelihood, method = "L-BFGS-B",

Dear all, Firstly, I do apologize if my question is simple and posted in the wrong place but I had no reply from the R-help mailing list (maybe it is too simple!). I was wondering why parscale is set to 20 in the "wild" function example used in ?optim. This function has only one parameter and if we set parscale equal to 1 then the solution near the global minimum is not found. I

Dear sirs, I would like to know if there is a function to compute the pvalue for the significancy of arima coef in an arima object created by the arima function. I have written this one: pvalueArima<-function(x,arima) { t<-(arima$coef)/(diag(arima$var.coef)^0.5) df<-length(x)-length(arima$coef) 1-pt(t,df) } Has somebody already implemented something equivalent ? thank you for your

Dear List, A posting to R-Help exposed this problem with the print method for objects of class Arima: > set.seed(1) > x <- arima.sim(n = 100, list(ar = 0.8897, ma = -0.2279)) > mod <- arima(x, order = c(1,0,1)) > coefs <- coef(mod) > mod2 <- arima(x, order = c(1,0,1), fixed = coefs) > mod2 Call: arima(x = x, order = c(1, 0, 1), fixed = coefs) Coefficients: Error

I am having a problem with optim() using the "L-BFGS-B" method. When I set the lower limit for the third parameter equal to zero I get an error message: > low.lim.3 <- 0 > phi_opt <- optim(phi_, model_lik, NULL, method = "L-BFGS-B", lower=c(0.2, -100, low.lim.3, 0), upper= c(10, 100, 10, 10), control = list(maxit = 1000, parscale = c(0.2, u1, 0.002, 0.002), trace =

Hi R-users, I am trying to estimate function parameters using optim(). My count observations follows a Poisson like distribution. The problem is that I wanna express the lambda coefficient, in the passion likelihood function, as a linear function of other covariates (and thus of other coefficients). The codes that I am using (except data frame) are the following (FYI the parameters need to be