[ADMB Users] a difference in estimates between versions?

[Steve Martell]

Here are the results from a Mac!  Based on revision 89 (July 14, 2011), last time I committed to the source code.

 index   name   value      std.dev   
     1   r    5.0287e-01 5.9674e-02
     2   B1   8.9118e+04 1.1292e+04
     3   K    9.0878e+04 6.0853e+03
     4   lnq -2.1634e+00 1.7195e-01

I think this might be a bit of a dog chasing its tail.  Why not use one of the benchmark models for this issue instead of this code.  If the same problem exists with a benchmark model (e.g. catage) then Saang-Yoon might have a  point, otherwise it could just be these uninformative data.

By the way, it might help to rescale the data I noticed the latent variables here span 5 orders of magnitude.

S

On 2011-10-05, at 11:27 AM, Derek Seiple 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
>> 
> <gbytffall.tpl><gbytffall.dat>_______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users at admb-project.org
> http://lists.admb-project.org/mailman/listinfo/users