Hii,

I used Proc NLMIXED for a non linear model, and wanted to talk about how it 'finds' the parameter estimates with maximum likelihood.

So I thought I'd look at a simple example: finding the mean and variance of a normally distributed variable "r".

I used Proc NLMIXED and found the variable is N(-0.6458, 0.4080^2), as I expected. The "NegLogLike" appears to be 62.6976.

I then used Proc IML to find the same information, with the desire to make a plot of "what's happening" as in http://blogs.sas.com/content/iml/2011/10/12/maximum-likelihood-estimation-in-sasiml/

I did all this successfully (or so I thought) and made a pretty plot, then compared the output and realised I found my variable  r ~ N(-0.6458, 0.4080^2) as desired, but "Value of Objective Function = 47.575023947" which I expected to be 62.6... as above.

I have used the same optimisation technique each time - Dual Quasi-Newton - so I don't see what I'm doing wrong or where the differences can be attributed to?

Thanks,

Katie xx

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions

I think the main problem is that you have missed out the factor of 2 pi in the log-likelihood function.  If I substitute:

f = - n # log(2 # constant('pi') # sigma2) /2 - ssq(c) / (2 # sigma2);

in the LogLik module then I get an iteration history from NLPQN that very closely matches the NLMIXED output.  There are other issues, the code you posted generates errors in the log, but these are related to some lines of code following the 'close' statement that can be deleted from the program.

3 REPLIES 3

I think the main problem is that you have missed out the factor of 2 pi in the log-likelihood function.  If I substitute:

f = - n # log(2 # constant('pi') # sigma2) /2 - ssq(c) / (2 # sigma2);

in the LogLik module then I get an iteration history from NLPQN that very closely matches the NLMIXED output.  There are other issues, the code you posted generates errors in the log, but these are related to some lines of code following the 'close' statement that can be deleted from the program.

Amazing, thanks, I didn't notice that! I will have a look after my breakfast thanks so much  x

Update- just ran it- perfect! Really grateful, thank you Update again.... results were slighly different... added  update=DBFGS ; to my NLMIXED statement and it's now identical. Two days wasted on this! So glad to see matching numbers!