<?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 Re: Convergence criterion (GCONV=1E-8) satisfied. At least one element of the gradient is greater 1e in Statistical Procedures</title>
    <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Convergence-criterion-GCONV-1E-8-satisfied-At-least-one-element/m-p/296762#M15814</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;In almost all of the cases I have worked with, I have seen the same NOTE and haven't been terribly concerned. &amp;nbsp;However, it could easily lead to very large standard errors for the associated parameter. &amp;nbsp;This can sometimes be handled by doing the following:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;What you might do is add the ITDETAILS option to your PROC GLIMMIX statement, and see which element of the gradient is still relatively large. &amp;nbsp;If you then relate that back to a model parameter, you could attempt to rescale the associated variable. &amp;nbsp;As ide from this, things like altering the optimization technique in an NLOPTIONS statement could be tried--ridging often helps, so tech=NRRIDG might be a good start.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Steve Denham&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2016 15:08:48 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>SteveDenham</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2016-09-06T15:08:48Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Convergence criterion (GCONV=1E-8) satisfied. At least one element of the gradient is greater 1e-3</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Convergence-criterion-GCONV-1E-8-satisfied-At-least-one-element/m-p/296673#M15810</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;in my multinomial logistic regression with proc glimmix, I frequently get the following note:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;NOTE: Convergence criterion (GCONV=1E-8) satisfied.&lt;BR /&gt;NOTE: At least one element of the gradient is greater than 1e-3.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In the convergence status table, I find status=0 with reason= 'Convergence criterion (GCONV=1E-10) satisfied.'&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;From the paper &lt;A href="http://support.sas.com/resources/papers/proceedings12/332-2012.pdf" target="_blank"&gt;http://support.sas.com/resources/papers/proceedings12/332-2012.pdf&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;and a previous post (&lt;A href="https://communities.sas.com/t5/SAS-Procedures/MEANING-Convergence-criterion-GCONV-1E-8-satisfied/m-p/107562#M29905" target="_blank"&gt;https://communities.sas.com/t5/SAS-Procedures/MEANING-Convergence-criterion-GCONV-1E-8-satisfied/m-p/107562#M29905&lt;/A&gt;), I learned that the relative change in the gradient value is sufficiently small (due to a maximum/ minimum/ saddle point in the objective function),&amp;nbsp; but the gradient value itself is not be small. So I followed the recommendation in the paper and set nloptions / gconv=0. However, the note "At least one element of the gradient is greater than 1e-3." persists but now the convergence status table says 'The convergence status is indeterminate.' with status=0. If I choose gconv= 1e-10, I still get the note in the log file and the convergence status table again says 'The convergence status is indeterminate.'&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So my question is: Do I have to worry about the note or which impact does it have? And what else could I try?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks in advance and kind regards.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;M&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2016 09:47:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Convergence-criterion-GCONV-1E-8-satisfied-At-least-one-element/m-p/296673#M15810</guid>
      <dc:creator>Maya1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-09-06T09:47:15Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Convergence criterion (GCONV=1E-8) satisfied. At least one element of the gradient is greater 1e</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Convergence-criterion-GCONV-1E-8-satisfied-At-least-one-element/m-p/296762#M15814</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;In almost all of the cases I have worked with, I have seen the same NOTE and haven't been terribly concerned. &amp;nbsp;However, it could easily lead to very large standard errors for the associated parameter. &amp;nbsp;This can sometimes be handled by doing the following:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;What you might do is add the ITDETAILS option to your PROC GLIMMIX statement, and see which element of the gradient is still relatively large. &amp;nbsp;If you then relate that back to a model parameter, you could attempt to rescale the associated variable. &amp;nbsp;As ide from this, things like altering the optimization technique in an NLOPTIONS statement could be tried--ridging often helps, so tech=NRRIDG might be a good start.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Steve Denham&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2016 15:08:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Convergence-criterion-GCONV-1E-8-satisfied-At-least-one-element/m-p/296762#M15814</guid>
      <dc:creator>SteveDenham</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-09-06T15:08:48Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Convergence criterion (GCONV=1E-8) satisfied. At least one element of the gradient is greater 1e</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Convergence-criterion-GCONV-1E-8-satisfied-At-least-one-element/m-p/297137#M15831</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Thanks, Mr Denham! Is there any literature which I could cite that this issue is not a big deal and that only the standard errors might be affected?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Btw, I already use tech=nrridge in combination with method=laplace and have only one binary predictor and count data as dependent variable, so I guess, rescaling is not an option? Anything else that I could try?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks again, M&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2016 09:09:06 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Convergence-criterion-GCONV-1E-8-satisfied-At-least-one-element/m-p/297137#M15831</guid>
      <dc:creator>Maya1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-09-08T09:09:06Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Convergence criterion (GCONV=1E-8) satisfied. At least one element of the gradient is greater 1e</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Convergence-criterion-GCONV-1E-8-satisfied-At-least-one-element/m-p/297799#M15849</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Could you report the results of the ITDETAILS, along with your model? &amp;nbsp;That might help.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;As far as a read, Walt Stroup's&amp;nbsp;&lt;EM&gt;Generalized Linear Mixed Models&lt;/EM&gt; would be my choice. Also, check for posts by&amp;nbsp;@lvm--he has mentioned a couple of papers by Stroup that may touch on this as well.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Steve Denham&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2016 17:14:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Convergence-criterion-GCONV-1E-8-satisfied-At-least-one-element/m-p/297799#M15849</guid>
      <dc:creator>SteveDenham</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-09-12T17:14:14Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

