similar to: optim() non-finite finite-difference value

Hi, I'm having some difficulties formulating this question. But what I want, is to extract the options associated with a parameter for a function. e.g. method = c("Nelder-Mead", "BFGS", "CG", "L-BFGS-B", "SANN") in the optim function. So I would like to have a vector with c("Nelder-Mead", "BFGS", "CG",

I am trying to estimate a gamma function using real data and I am getting the following error messages. When I set a lower limit; the error message is "L-BFGS-B needs finite values of fn" ? For other method the error message is: Error in optim(x = c(0.105286666666667, 0.3472275, 2.057625, 0.329675,? : ? non-finite finite-difference value [1] The codes works fine for simulated data

On 26/03/2023 11:54 a.m., J C Nash wrote: > A tangential email discussion with Simon U. has highlighted a long-standing > matter that some tools in the base R distribution are outdated, but that > so many examples and other tools may use them that they cannot be deprecated. > > The examples that I am most familiar with concern optimization and nonlinear > least squares, but

A tangential email discussion with Simon U. has highlighted a long-standing matter that some tools in the base R distribution are outdated, but that so many examples and other tools may use them that they cannot be deprecated. The examples that I am most familiar with concern optimization and nonlinear least squares, but other workers will surely be able to suggest cases elsewhere. I was the

>>>>> Duncan Murdoch >>>>> on Sun, 26 Mar 2023 12:41:03 -0400 writes: > On 26/03/2023 11:54 a.m., J C Nash wrote: >> A tangential email discussion with Simon U. has >> highlighted a long-standing matter that some tools in the >> base R distribution are outdated, but that so many >> examples and other tools may use

I have a Master's student working on a project which involves estimating parameters of a certain model via maximum likelihood, with the maximization being done via optim(). A phenomenon has occurred which I am at a loss to explain. If we use certain pairs of starting values for optim(), it simply returns those values as the ``optimal'' values, although they are definitely not

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

While working on 'random walk' applications, I got interested in optimizing noisy objective functions. As an (artificial) example, the following is the Rosenbrock function, where Gaussian noise of standard deviation `sd = 0.01` is added to the function value. fn <- function(x) (1+rnorm(1, sd=0.01)) * adagio::fnRosenbrock(x) To smooth out the noise, define another

As the original coder (in mid 1970s) of BFGS, CG and Nelder-Mead in optim(), I've been pushing for some time for their deprecation. They aren't "bad", but we have better tools, and they are in CRAN packages. Similarly, I believe other optimization tools in the core (optim::L-BFGS-B, nlm, nlminb) can and should be moved to packages (there are already 2 versions at least of LBFGS

Hi R users, I am using the optim funciton to maximize a log likelihood function. My code is as follows: p<-optim(c(-0.2392925,0.4653128,-0.8332286, 0.0657, -0.0031, -0.00245, 3.366, 0.5885, -0.00008, 0.0786,-0.00292,-0.00081, 3.266, -0.3632, -0.000049, 0.1856, 0.00394, -0.00193, -0.889, 0.5379, -0.000063, 0.213, 0.00338, -0.00026, -0.8912, -0.3023, -0.000056), f,

Dear both, I have found that names are not treated in the same way in optim() depending on the optimization method (argument method). The example below shows the difference between the Brent method and the L-BFGS-B method. f <- function(x){ y <- x^2;names(y) <-"f(x)";y} optim(10, f, method="Brent", lower=-1, upper=10)$value optim(10, f, method="L-BFGS-B",

Hi! I'm trying to figure out how to use optim... I get some really strange results, so I guess I got something wrong. I defined the following function which should be minimized: errorFunction <- function(localShifts,globalShift,fileName,experimentalPI,lambda) { lambda <- 1/sqrt(147) # error <- abs(errHuber(localShifts,globalShift, #

Dear R-er, For a non-linear optimisation, I used optim() with BFGS method but it stopped regularly before to reach a true mimimum. It was not a problem with limit of iterations, just a local minimum. I was able sometimes to reach better minimum using several rounds of optim(). Then I moved to optimx() to do the different optim rounds automatically using "Nelder-Mead" and

Dear UseRs, Is there a way to define the lower-upper bounds for parameters fitted by optim using the Nelder-Mead method ? Thanks, Arnaud [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

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

Dear All, I am trying to solve a Generalized Method of Moments problem which necessitate the gradient of moments computation to get the standard errors of estimates. I know optim does not output the gradient, but I can use numericDeriv to get that. My question is: is this the best function to do this? Thank you Jean,

Dear all, There have been one or two questions posted to the list regarding the optim error "non-finite finite-difference value [4]." The error apparently means that the 4th element of the gradient is non-finite. My question is what part(s) of my program should I fiddle with in an attempt to fix it? Starting values? Something in the log-likelihood itself? Perhaps the data

Dear list,   I am looking for an R-only implementation of a Nelder-Mead process that can find local maxima of a spatially distributed variable, e.g. height, on a spatial grid, and outputs the coordinates of the new point during each evaluation. I have found two previous threads about this topic, and was wondering if something similar has been implemented since those messages were posted.   Thank

I am using R 2.7.0 on a linux platform. I am trying to reproduce a 2002 example using lme from the nlme library. I want to change the otimizer from the default (nlminb) to optim. Specifically, this is what I am trying to do: R> library(nlme) R> library(car) # for data only R> data(Blackmoor) # from car R> Blackmoor$log.exercise <- log(Blackmoor$exercise + 5/60, 2) R>

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