Bookmark and Share

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]

Re: st: Different results with Stata 10 and Stata 11


From   Austin Nichols <austinnichols@gmail.com>
To   statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject   Re: st: Different results with Stata 10 and Stata 11
Date   Thu, 16 Jun 2011 11:30:07 -0400

Beatrice Crozza <beatrice.crozza@gmail.com> :
Just read
http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?whatsnew10to11
down to
7.  Existing command ml has been rewritten.  It is now implemented in
            terms of new Mata function and optimization engine moptimize().
            The new ml handles automatic or implied constraints, posts some
            additional information to e(), and allows evaluators written in
            Mata as well as ado.  See [R] maximize for an overview and see
            [R] ml and [M-5] moptimize().
and probably trust neither result too much if the result is sensitive
to the optimization engine!

You can still use options described at
http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?maximize
http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?ml
to improve your results.
It is always possible in max likelihood to find a local max rather
than a global max, or to fail to find a max.

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Beatrice Crozza
<beatrice.crozza@gmail.com> wrote:
> What do you mean that -ml- changed? What is the result that I should
> consider correct?
*
*   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/


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