Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

The inconsistent results with the same input data #33

Closed
mymyabc5186 opened this issue Jul 21, 2015 · 5 comments
Closed

The inconsistent results with the same input data #33

mymyabc5186 opened this issue Jul 21, 2015 · 5 comments
Labels

Comments

@mymyabc5186
Copy link

I have run MixSIAR model several times with the same input data. However, the model predictions (such as median (50th percentile) values) were inconsistent. The Gelman diagnostic of some variables was not < 1.05. The Geweke diagnostic of some chains was not expected to be 5% outside +/-1.96. Did it mean the results of my own data were not reliable?

Many thanks!

@JasonMHill
Copy link

Sounds like your model hasn't reached convergence yet. I would just run longer chains/increase the burn-in as a first step to your troubleshooting. What MCMC run length are you using in the GUI?

@mymyabc5186
Copy link
Author

The MCMC run length of 'long' is used in the GUI. Then, if the model doesn't reach convergence, the model predictions couldn't be used. Could you help me what should I do the next step?

Thank you very much!

@ericward-noaa
Copy link
Collaborator

The MCMC run length should be long enough, so I suspect it's something about the data not being in agreement with the model you're trying to fit. I always recommend starting by plotting the data as a biplot. If for example the sources look like they're grouped in clusters (consumers specializing on different things), and you haven't included random effects, the model won't converge.

@brianstock
Copy link
Owner

Agreed, your model has probably not converged. And yes, you're right, if the model has not converged then you shouldn't use the results. When looking at the diagnostics, ALL (not some) of the variables should have Gelman diagnostics < 1.01 ideally, and definitely < 1.05.

"Long" is 300,000 - pretty long. You can try longer chains ("Very long" = 1,000,000: #17).

The data could also not make sense to the model, as @eric-ward just said.

@mymyabc5186
Copy link
Author

Thanks for your kind help! The very long chains seems much better. All of the variables have Gelman diagnostics < 1.05. Moreover, there were little differences among the results run at different times. Thanks again.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants