Closed MichaelClerx closed 6 years ago
This was done with a sum-of-squares error by the way, which should be linearly proportional to -1 * the log-likelihood
I can't remember whether we let CMA-ES loose on the log posterior rather than the log likelihood. In terms of getting to the maximum posterior density point, rather than the maximum likelihood point, this is probably what we should do.
I don't see a posterior even in the mcmc code!
On Fri, 08 Dec 2017 11:55:39 +0000 (UTC) Gary Mirams notifications@github.com wrote
I can't remember whether we let CMA-ES loose on the log posterior rather than the log likelihood.
-- You are receiving this because you were assigned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/ModellingWebLab/project_issues/issues/37#issuecomment-3502
Works now!
With 25 repeats (and the pints default stopping criteria) I get the same result as Kylie:
Will need to get some better output from pints. For example, the mean/std which I put in is pretty useless as it's massively skewed. Would want all scores, median, etc. Will work on that!
Compariong with Kylie's published (MCMC) result:
So first two digits equal in all cases, typically first three! Formalise this, get better output, and move one?