Notice: On March 31, it was **announced** that Statalist is moving from an email list to a **forum**. The old list will shut down on April 23, and its replacement, **statalist.org** is already up and running.

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

From |
Nick Cox <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk> |

To |
"'statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu'" <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> |

Subject |
RE: st: RE: nl-function log4-formula |

Date |
Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:19:13 +0000 |

I have a slightly better answer. The two are not equivalent as using the canned -log4- program carries with it some choices for the initial values for parameter search. It's a common experience with -nl- that having good initial values can be crucial to getting a convergent answer. In this case there are 4 parameters and that can bite quite hard if the model is not an especially good fit. Nick n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk Nick Cox Only that you should take this to Stata tech support if no explanation is forthcoming on the list. They would need to see your data, or data that reproduces your precise problem. Nick n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk Jennyfer Wolf I tried with the parantheses outside: 2. nl(VAR1={b0}+{b1}/(1+exp(-{b2}*(VAR2-{b3})))) if VAR3=="xxx" It does not change anything. Still I don't get same reults as with log4 and only an estimate for b0. Would you have another idea? 2011/11/16 Nick Cox <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>: > I don't know, but tucking the -if- condition inside the parentheses looks a bit odd. Try moving it outside. > > -nl- is a command, not a function. > > Nick > n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk > > Jennyfer Wolf > > I am working with the nl-function and with the logistic function model log 4. > Could somebody please explain me why I do not get the same outout if I type: > > 1. nl log4: VAR1 VAR2 if VAR3=="xxx" > > and > > 2. nl(VAR1={b0}+{b1}/(1+exp(-{b2}*(VAR2-{b3}))) if VAR3=="xxx") > > Actually 1. should just be an abbreviation of 2.? > If I run command 1, I get estimates for b0, b1, b2, b3, if I run > command 2 I only get an estimate for b0 and b1-b3 are 0. > > Could somebody explain how to write the formula "in full" (like in > 2.), to get the same results as in the first formula. * * 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/

**References**:**st: nl-function log4-formula***From:*Jennyfer Wolf <jennyfer.wolf@googlemail.com>

**st: RE: nl-function log4-formula***From:*Nick Cox <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>

**Re: st: RE: nl-function log4-formula***From:*Jennyfer Wolf <jennyfer.wolf@googlemail.com>

**RE: st: RE: nl-function log4-formula***From:*Nick Cox <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>

- Prev by Date:
**RE: st: FW: ML for logit/ologit** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: Creating dummy variables** - Previous by thread:
**RE: st: RE: nl-function log4-formula** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: RE: nl-function log4-formula** - Index(es):