similar to: start value in nlminb

I am trying to optimize a likelihood function using NLMINB. After running without a problem for quite a few iterations (enough that my intermediate output extends further than I can scroll back), it tries a vector of parameter values NaN. This has happened with multiple Monte Carlo datasets, and a few different (but very similar) likelihood functions. (They are complicated, but I can send them

This is a follow-up question for PR#15052 <http://bugs.r-project.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=15052> There is another thing I would like to discuss wrt how nlminb() should proceed with NAs. The question is: What would be a successful way to deal with an evaluation point of the objective function where the gradient and the hessian are not well defined? If the gradient and the hessian both

Hi all ! I've been trying to maximize a likelihood using optim( ) function, but it seems that the function has several local maxima. I've tried in my algorithm with different starting values and depending on them "optim" obtains different results... I use the "L-BFGS-B" method setting the lower values as 1e-06, because my parameters must be strictly positive. Also

I am having the same problem as one Rebecca Sela(see bellow). On 21/12/2007 12:07 AM, Rebecca Sela wrote: >* I am trying to optimize a likelihood function using NLMINB. After running without a problem for quite a few iterations (enough that my intermediate output extends further than I can scroll back), it tries a vector of parameter values NaN. This has happened with multiple Monte Carlo

I won't add to the quite long discussion about the vagaries of nlminb, but will note that over a long period of software work in this optimization area I've found a number of programs and packages that do strange things when the objective is a function of a single parameter. Some methods quite explicitly throw an error when n<2. It seems nlminb does not, but that does not mean that

Hi Everybody, My problem is that nlminb doesn't converge, in minimising a logLikelihood function, with 31*6 parameters(2 weibull parameters+29 regressors repeated 6 times). I use nlminb like this : res1<-nlminb(vect, V, lower=c(rep(0.01, 12), rep(0.01, 3), rep(-Inf, n-15)), upper=c(rep(Inf, 12), rep(0.99, 3), rep(Inf, n-15)), control = list(maxit=1000) ) and that's the result :

Hello I'm trying to solve two sets of equations (each set has four equations and all of them share common parameters) with nlminb procedure. I minimize one set and use their parameters as initial values of other set, repeating this until their parameters become very close to each other. I have several parameters (say,param1, param2) and their constraints are given as inequality and depend

#optim package estimate<-optim(init.par,Linn,hessian=TRUE, method=c("L-BFGS-B"),control = list(trace=1,abstol=0.001),lower=c(0,0,0,0,-Inf,-Inf,-Inf,-Inf,-Inf,-Inf,-Inf,-Inf,-Inf),upper=c(1,1,1,1,Inf,Inf,Inf,Inf,Inf,Inf,Inf,Inf,Inf)) #nlminb package estimate<-nlminb(init.par,Linn,gr=NULL,hessian=TRUE,control =

Hi, I was wondering if someone could give a brief, big picture overview of the difference between the two optimization functions nlm and nlminb. I'm not familiar with PORT routines, so I was hoping someone could give an explanation. Thanks, Angelo _________________________________________________________________ Instantly invite friends from Facebook and other social networks to join yo

No error on Windows 10, R.3.5.2 patched, Rblas compiled with OpenBLAS 0.20, Rlapack is base. > f <- function(x) sum( log(diff(x)^2+.01) + (x[1]-1)^2 ) > opt <- nlminb(rep(0, 10), f, lower=-1, upper=3) > str(opt) List of 6 $ par : num [1:10] 1 1 1 1 1 ... $ objective : num -41.4 $ convergence: int 0 $ iterations : int 66 $ evaluations: Named int [1:2] 96 830 ..-

Hello I want to use the nlminb function but I have the objective function like characters. I can summarize the problem using the first example in the nlminb documentation. x <- rnbinom(100, mu = 10, size = 10) hdev <- function(par) -sum(dnbinom(x, mu = par[1], size = par[2], log = TRUE)) nlminb(c(9, 12), objective=hdev) With the last instructions we obtain appropriate results. If I have

Dear R-users I am trying to find a value for the risk free rate minimizing the difference between a BS call value with impl. volatilities minus the market price of a call (assuming this is just the average bid ask price) Here is my data: http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/file/n3747509/S%26P_500_calls%2C_jan-jun_2010.csv S%26P_500_calls%2C_jan-jun_2010.csv S0 <- 1136.03 q <- 0.02145608 S0

Hallo together, I am trying to estimate parameters by means of QMLE using the nlminb optimizer for a tree-structured GARCH model. I face two problems. First, the optimizer returns error[8] false convergence if I estimate the functions below. I have estimated the model at first with nlm without any problems, but then I needed to add some constraints so i choose nlminb.

Dear R developers, I tried to use nlminb instead of optim for a current problem (fitting parameters of a differential equation model). The PORT algorithm converged much better than any of optim's methods and the identified parameters are plausible. However, it took me a while before spotting the reason of a technical problem that nlminb, in contrast to optim, does not pass names of the

>>>>> Kasper Kristensen via R-devel >>>>> on Mon, 28 Jan 2019 08:56:39 +0000 writes: > I've noticed unstable behavior of nlminb on some Linux > systems. The problem can be reproduced by compiling > R-3.5.2 using gcc-8.2 and running the following snippet: > f <- function(x) sum( log(diff(x)^2+.01) + (x[1]-1)^2 ) > opt

All, I have been able to successfully use the optim( ) function with "L-BFGS-B" to find reasonable parameters for a one-compartment open pharmacokinetic model. My loss function in this case was squared error, and I made no assumptions about the distribution of the plasma values. The model appeared to fit pretty well. Out of curiosity, I decided to try to use nlminb( ) applied to a

I'm trying to estimate the parameters for GARCH(1,1) process. Here's my code: loglikelihood <-function(theta) { h=((r[1]-theta[1])^2) p=0 for (t in 2:length(r)) { h=c(h,theta[2]+theta[3]*((r[t-1]-theta[1])^2)+theta[4]*h[t-1]) p=c(p,dnorm(r[t],theta[1],sqrt(h[t]),log=TRUE)) } -sum(p) } Then I use nlminb to minimize the function loglikelihood: nlminb(

Hello all, I am trying to get the variance-covariance (VCOV) matrix of the parameter estimates produced from the nlminb minimizing function, using vcov.nlminb, but it seems to have been expunged from the MASS library. The hessian from nlminb is also producing NaNs, although the estimates seems to be right, so I can't VCOV that way either. I also tried using the vcov function after minimizing

This is not about the failure on some platforms, which is an important issue. However, what is below may provide a temporary workaround until the source of the problem is uncovered. FWIW, the problem seems fairly straightforward for most optimizers at my disposal in the R-forge (developmental) version of the optimx package at https://r-forge.r-project.org/projects/optimizer/ I used the code ##

Hello I'm new to R (one week) so please excuse any obvious mistakes in my code or posting. I am attempting to fit a non linear function defining the relationship between dependent variable A and the variables PAR and T grouped by the condition Di. The following steps are taken in the Rcode below: 1) load the data (not shown) 2) define the function to be fit 3) define the starting values