[ADMB Users] a difference in estimates between versions?

[Weihai Liu]

add this line in report_section

report<<objective_function_value::gmax>>endl;

weihai

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Saang-Yoon <shyunuw at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you all very much for your responses.  I have a better idea
> now.   I was obsessed only by the successful calculation of Hessian
> matrix.  I overlooked the maximum gradient value.   By the way, could
> you tell me how to spit out the maximum gradient value through
> REPORT_SECTION?   I can see it from the calculation output and also
> from the PAR file, but I would like to have it via REPORT_SECTION?
> Saang-Yoon
>
> On Oct 5, 11:37 pm, Steve Martell <s.mart... at fisheries.ubc.ca> wrote:
> > 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 <da... 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
> > >> Us... at admb-project.org
> > >>http://lists.admb-project.org/mailman/listinfo/users
> >
> > >
> <gbytffall.tpl><gbytffall.dat>_____________________________________________­__
> > > Users mailing list
> > > Us... at admb-project.org
> > >http://lists.admb-project.org/mailman/listinfo/users
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Users mailing list
> > Us... at admb-project.orghttp://
> lists.admb-project.org/mailman/listinfo/users- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20111006/b1db8d32/attachment.html>