Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
st: RE: Newton-Raphson (not concave)
From
"Nick Cox" <[email protected]>
To
<[email protected]>
Subject
st: RE: Newton-Raphson (not concave)
Date
Wed, 14 Apr 2010 11:49:31 +0100
I'd say that while failure to converge is almost always diagnostic of a poor model (or poor data), small struggles in convergence are rarely diagnostic of anything much, especially with complicated models like these.
But wondering whether a simpler model is preferable is always good science and good statistics.
Nick
[email protected]
Dimitrije Tišma
I am running a multi-level random intercept model and after the
adaptive quadrature has converged I have got four consecutive
iterations with (not concave) message. If the model does converge
should I believe my results or should I try another simpler model by
taking out one or two variables?
*
* 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/