individual likelihood statistics (classic Mx MX%P)
Posted on

Forums
Is there some way to export the likelihood function for a vector of observations equivalent to the 1st column of the classic Mx MX%P= command?
I am unfamiliar with "MX%P="
mxFIMLObjective()
function. The demo 'OneFactorModel_LikelihoodVector' has an example of using this argument.Log in or register to post comments
In reply to I am unfamiliar with "MX%P=" by mspiegel
Thanks! That is exactly what
Log in or register to post comments
In reply to Thanks! That is exactly what by t0mpr1c3
A related issue: The
The documentation shows that mxRAMObjective allows a parameter "vector", but my version mxVersion=="0.3.3-1264" does not implement this parameter. Has this been changed in a more recent version?
Log in or register to post comments
In reply to A related issue: The by t0mpr1c3
Please download the most
source('http://openmx.psyc.virginia.edu/getOpenMx.R')
.Log in or register to post comments
In reply to Please download the most by mspiegel
Mx%P
Log in or register to post comments
In reply to Mx%P by neale
We have talked about this
Log in or register to post comments
In reply to We have talked about this by mspiegel
Great!!
mxRun(model, slotsNotWanted=list("estimatedHessian","likelihoods","otherStuff")
would offer the user control over the volume of information being passed back to R from the backend.
Log in or register to post comments
In reply to Great!! by neale
I think mxOption is a better
First of all, we need to limit the number of argument to mxRun to keep complexity down for the user.
Second, this is actually an option that people would want to change for each individual objective function, rather than for each overall run.
Third, it's something that many people will either want to have returned, or just won't care about at all. Since it's fairly cheap to return in the general case, it's unlikely to be changed by many folks. That means that an argument to mxRun runs a higher risk of confusing people than it does of helping them.
I'd recommend instead that we use the mxOption interface the way that we do for the RAM Optimization and Data Sorting; these can be set for each child model or for the parent model as a whole, and we can add options boundlessly without adding too much confusion.
I'd probably also stick to names like "Return Row Likelihoods" so that what they do is clear.
Log in or register to post comments
In reply to I think mxOption is a better by tbrick
Agreed, 100%
Log in or register to post comments
In reply to A related issue: The by t0mpr1c3
0.3.3 is an old version.
http://openmx.psyc.virginia.edu/installing-openmx
Further, you can install the beta 1.1 release and use/test even newer features like so:
http://openmx.psyc.virginia.edu/2011/06/more-stable-openmx-11-beta-release
Log in or register to post comments
Sorry to revive this old
`
Running mix2 with 13 parameters
Error: The job for model 'mix2' exited abnormally with the error message: mix2.fitfunction of type imxFitFunciontHiddenMarkov returned 150 values instead of 1, not sure how to proceed
`
Log in or register to post comments
Ah, nevermind - I see that
Log in or register to post comments
In reply to Ah, nevermind - I see that by cjvanlissa
Sorry for delay
Log in or register to post comments
mxFitFunctionML(rowDiagnostics=TRUE)
rowDiagnostics
argument of themxFitFunctionML()
function. Something like this:mxFitFunctionML(rowDiagnostics=TRUE)
This returns row likelihoods, row Mahalanobis distances, and the number of non-missing variables by row. See the help page via
?mxFitFunctionML
for further details and example use.Log in or register to post comments