RE: OFV higher with FOCEI than FO
As shown by X. Wang, FO, FOCE and LAPLACE form a hierarchy of approximations.
Both the FO and FOCE methods are based on the same underlying Laplacian
approximation to the
integral of the joint likelihood function of the random effects (eta's).
The basic Laplace approximation requires knowledge of
the value of the joint likelihood function at its peak, and the second
derivatives at the
eta values at which the peak is reached.
The FOCE method adds 1 additional approximation to get the
Hessian matrix of second derivatives at the peak of the joint likelihood
function
from first derivatives, but accurately
determines the position of the peak (the empirical Bayes estimates)
in random effects (eta) space
and the function value at the peak (this determination of the EBE's is what
the 'conditional step'
is all about and is computationally costly.)
Although the underlying Laplacian approximation is based on the local behavior
of the
joint log likelihood function in the neighborhood of its peak, FO does not
investigate the behavior
of the joint likelihood function near its peak at all (which is basically why
FO estimates can be arbitrarily
poor). Instead it guestimates the value at the peak by extrapolating from
eta=0, using a single Newton step
based on approximate first and second derivatives at eta=0. It also simply
assigns the FOCE
approximate values of the
second derivatives at eta=0 to the values at the peak in order to evaluate the
Laplacian approximation.
These additional approximations layered on top of the basic Laplacian and FOCE
approximations
by FO are quite dubious for significantly nonlinear model functions, and often
result in very poor quality
parameter estimates compared to FOCE and Laplace.
Strictly speaking. FOCE and FO objective values cannot be compared in any
consistently meaningful sense.
But loosely speaking, since both FO and FOCE share a common base Laplacian
approximation, but FO layers
on additional approximations on top of FOCE, the difference in FO vs FOCE
objective values reflects the
effects of the additional FO approximations. Large differences may suggest
that the additional FO approximations
have large effects, and make the FO estimates even more suspect relative to
FOCE.
Robert H. Leary, PhD
Principal Software Engineer
Pharsight Corp.
5520 Dillard Dr., Suite 210
Cary, NC 27511
Phone/Voice Mail: (919) 852-4625, Fax: (919) 859-6871
This email message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the
intended recipient and may contain confidential and proprietary information.
Any disclosure or distribution to third parties that is not specifically
authorized by the sender is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original
message.
Quoted reply history
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 9:40 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected]
Subject: [NMusers] OFV higher with FOCEI than FO
Dear All,
I am analyzing a data set pooled from 4 clinical studies with rich sampling.
When I fit a 2 comp oral absorption model with lag time using FO, I got
successful minimization with COV step, but minimization was not successful when
I used FO parameter estimates as initial estimates for FOCE run. When I used
FOCE with INTER minimization was successful with COV step but the OFV is much
higher (~25000 vs 20000) with FOCEI estimation than FO. The parameter
estimates make more sense with FOCEI than FO. My questions are,
Can we get something like this or I am missing something here?
Can we compare OFV between different estimation methods (my understanding is no
and OFV in case of FO does not make a lot of sense)?
Regards,
Ayyappa Chaturvedula
GlaxoSmithKline
1500 Littleton Road,
Parsippany, NJ 07054
Ph:9738892200