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: RE: Can I have different results from Stata13 depending on the OS?


From   Daniel Feenberg <[email protected]>
To   [email protected]
Subject   Re: st: RE: Can I have different results from Stata13 depending on the OS?
Date   Tue, 21 Jan 2014 16:15:03 -0500 (EST)


On Tue, 21 Jan 2014, David Kantor wrote:

Hello,

I just want to add that I once had a situation in which I got different results in Stata MP vs. a single-processor version (of the same generation, I believe). I don't recall the details, but in the end, we decided to trust the Stata-MP result. Stata Technical Support explained that it had to do with MP making assumptions about what order some of the intermediary results could be computed -- or what could be concurrently. I could dig up the details of this matter, but at this point, the significant point is that, sometimes, MP can yield different results as compared to the single-processor version. Potentially, your two Statas could differ in that regard.
--David

My guess is that 99.44% of the time a large difference in estimated coefficients is due to an accidental change in the data that could be detected by running summarize before the estimation command. Or perhaps the sort order is significant and has changed. If that isn't the case, then consider if the difference is statistically significant. I think Albert Beaton is the author of a JASA article almost half a century ago pointing out that very small inaccuracies in arithmetic can substantially affect the results of a regression only if the estimation is already very imprecise for statistical reasons, but small errors can't make imprecise results seem precise. Both PC and Mac versions of Stata use ieee arithmetic, so there is very little chance of a major arithmetic error in the hardware. I believe even the decimal to binary conversion is controlled by the standard (I think) so that traditional source of difference is likely gone.

The Beaton article was a response to the then famous Longley critique of statistical packages. Longley provided a dataset that gave different results in different packages. This was long before Stata existed. Many readers of the Longley piece were worried that all of quantitative social science was based on arithmetic errors, but that wasn't the case, as Beaton showed. Any author of a package now must use double precision ieee arithmetic or be subject to (possibly unjustified) ridicule.

Daniel Feenberg
*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
*   http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/


© Copyright 1996–2018 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index