[ADMB Users] a difference in estimates between versions?

[Weihai Liu]

Hi Derek,
1) Windows32bit with ADMB 9.0 get results
 index   name   value      std.dev
     1   r   5.0174e-001    7.1722e-002
     2   B1  8.9945e+004 1.3305e+004
     3   K   9.0813e+004 7.5575e+003
     4   lnq -2.1667e+000 1.8993e-001

2) Windows32bit with latest built (this Sept., after subversion 128) get
results
 index   name   value      std.dev
     1   r   4.9970e-001 7.2940e-002
     2   B1  8.9504e+004 1.3599e+004
     3   K   9.1202e+004 7.9562e+003
     4   lnq -2.1695e+000 1.9095e-001


3) Ubuntu 64bit with latest built get hessian not positive definite warning
with no std file.

3) Not run for windows 64 bit with latest built yet (on my home computer, if
nobody run it, I will add that later).

weihai


On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Derek Seiple <dseiple84 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I ran Saang-Yoon's attached example on 32-bit ubuntu with version 9.1,
> 10.1, and the latest version with bug fixes. In ALL THREE I got the
> following .std file.
>
>  index   name   value      std dev
>      1   r    4.9790e-01 4.4611e-02
>     2   B1   8.8262e+04 9.0362e+03
>     3   K    9.1796e+04 4.5790e+03
>     4   lnq -2.1705e+00 1.4898e-01
>
>
> There was no difference in values amongst the versions. You will note
> though that these values are slightly different from the ones he
> supplied for ADMB IDE 450-1. This suggests to me that it is either a
> 32-bit-64-bit difference or a windows difference.
>
> Can anyone else run the attached model for 64-bit on linux and windows
> or 32-bit on windows for the two versions of ADMB and report the .std
> file for comparison?
>
> Derek
>
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 10:28 AM, dave fournier <davef at otter-rsch.com>
> wrote:
> > It is always interesting to see what kind of posts produce the most
> > response.
> > certainly none of mine. Anyway
> > there are a few standard things you can do to narrow this down.
> > First is to take the output from each model and put it into the other
> > version and see if the numbers
> > stay the same. That verifies that the code produces the same function
> value.
> > Also
> > you could reduce the convergence criterion as in -crit 1.e-6 to see if
> you
> > can get a little closer to the
> > actual minimum.
> >
> > Although it is not relevant to the discussion your approximation to the
> > differential equation
> > for the population dynamics is gross.  See the semi-implicit version in
> the
> > original
> > manual for an idea of how to do it right.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Users mailing list
> > Users at admb-project.org
> > http://lists.admb-project.org/mailman/listinfo/users
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users at admb-project.org
> http://lists.admb-project.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.admb-project.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20111005/18ef4e8c/attachment.html>