<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Mixture models using proc fmm: is there a way to force some models to converge. in Statistical Procedures</title>
    <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Mixture-models-using-proc-fmm-is-there-a-way-to-force-some/m-p/234870#M12409</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I have data with two modes or peaks.&amp;nbsp;The first mode I model using a truncated normal distribution, whereas the second one I model using a normal distribution. The model converges fine. However, when I try to replace normal distribution by Weibull or Gamma, the model doesn't seem to get a correct result. Instead of modelling by weibull d'n the second mode, it models by it the first mode, while the second mode is modelled by a truncated normal distribution. Is there a way to somehow force the model to use truncated normal for the first mode and weibull for the second mode, as I only want to replace normal dist'n by Weibull. The code I'm using is:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;proc fmm data=observations plot=density(bins=56);&lt;BR /&gt;model x = / dist=truncnormal(1.2,.);&lt;BR /&gt;model +/dist=weibull;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;output out=output_file mean (component) var (component) mixweights(component) posterior(component) prob(component) predicted(component) pred(component) loglike(component);&lt;BR /&gt;run;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thanks.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2015 15:23:44 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Pariz</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2015-11-16T15:23:44Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Mixture models using proc fmm: is there a way to force some models to converge.</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Mixture-models-using-proc-fmm-is-there-a-way-to-force-some/m-p/234870#M12409</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I have data with two modes or peaks.&amp;nbsp;The first mode I model using a truncated normal distribution, whereas the second one I model using a normal distribution. The model converges fine. However, when I try to replace normal distribution by Weibull or Gamma, the model doesn't seem to get a correct result. Instead of modelling by weibull d'n the second mode, it models by it the first mode, while the second mode is modelled by a truncated normal distribution. Is there a way to somehow force the model to use truncated normal for the first mode and weibull for the second mode, as I only want to replace normal dist'n by Weibull. The code I'm using is:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;proc fmm data=observations plot=density(bins=56);&lt;BR /&gt;model x = / dist=truncnormal(1.2,.);&lt;BR /&gt;model +/dist=weibull;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;output out=output_file mean (component) var (component) mixweights(component) posterior(component) prob(component) predicted(component) pred(component) loglike(component);&lt;BR /&gt;run;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thanks.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2015 15:23:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Mixture-models-using-proc-fmm-is-there-a-way-to-force-some/m-p/234870#M12409</guid>
      <dc:creator>Pariz</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-11-16T15:23:44Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Mixture models using proc fmm: is there a way to force some models to converge.</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Mixture-models-using-proc-fmm-is-there-a-way-to-force-some/m-p/234904#M12411</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;You don't mention the sample size. For small data and components whose peaks nearly overlap, you might not have many options.&amp;nbsp;The method just doesn't have enough power to distinguish two components that are close to each other unless the data size is large enough.&amp;nbsp;The two things to try are&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;(1) use the PARMS option in the MODEL statement to provide guesses for the parameters.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;(2) using the PARTIAL= option in the PROC FMM statement.to tell PROCFMM that an observation belongs to particular component&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;For a discussion of these topics, with examples, see &lt;A href="http://blogs.sas.com/content/iml/2011/10/21/the-power-of-finite-mixture-models.html" target="_self"&gt;"The power of finite mixture models."&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2015 18:08:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Mixture-models-using-proc-fmm-is-there-a-way-to-force-some/m-p/234904#M12411</guid>
      <dc:creator>Rick_SAS</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-11-16T18:08:27Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

