[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

From |
Austin Nichols <austinnichols@gmail.com> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
st: finding roots in Mata |

Date |
Fri, 30 Jan 2009 13:05:16 -0500 |

Roger et al.-- Out of curiosity, I compared: 1. using Ben Jann's mm_root() (findit moremata) to find a zero of f to 2. using official Stata optimize() to find a min of f^2 for a problem of occasional interest--finding the modal kth order statistic in a sample of n draws from a standard normal distribution, which is given by the zero of f(x)= (k-1)*(1-normal(x))*normalden(x)-(n-k)*normalden(x)*normal(x)-normal(x)*(1-normal(x))*x per Gupta (1961), http://projecteuclid.org/handle/euclid.aoms/1177704982 [see also http://www.jstor.org/stable/1267702 ] and in this case Ben Jann's mm_root() is far superior. For n more than about 13, and k=n, optimize() skips over interior solutions and skitters off toward a very large x where normalden(x) and 1-normal(x) both approach zero. There is an alternative parametrization for which optimize() performs as well as mm_root(), in terms of finding the right answer, but optimize() takes 7 msec and mm_root takes 2 msec: f=(k-1)/normal(x)-(n-k)/normal(-x)-x/normalden(x) The above also illustrates a possibly common pitfall in such problems, which frequent users of -ml- may already know well--beware of using quantities like 1-normal(x), which can easily reach zero as x gets large while the equivalent normal(-x) is nonzero. On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 3:03 AM, Roger Harbord <rmharbord@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:57 AM, Austin Nichols > <austinnichols@gmail.com> wrote: > <snip> >> >> I think Mata's optimizer is probably the best option for this problem, >> if one has Stata 10 --Roger Harbord says "Mata -optimize()- is also >> designed as a maximizer (or minimizer) rather than a root-finder" but >> note that Mata's optimize() can minimize (F(x)-A)^2 just fine which is >> the same as finding a root of F(x)-A. >> >> > I just had a gut feeling that changing a root-finding problem to a > minimization problem in this way loses information in some ill-defined > sense so is likely to be less efficient, and maybe less robust too. I > have no more formal or empirical evidence either way though. Anyone? > -- > Roger Harbord > http://www.epi.bris.ac.uk/staff/rharbord.htm * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

- Prev by Date:
**st: RE: Mixed Model for Couples** - Next by Date:
**RE: st: AW: estimation of series of OLS regressions based on t-values from previous regression** - Previous by thread:
**st: errors with reoprob** - Next by thread:
**st: Several endogenous dummies, one instrument for each, in a binary model** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2017 StataCorp LLC | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |