Re: RE: "ERROR IN LSODA: CODE -1"

On 22 September 2011 14:26, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Jeroen, > > Thank you for the elaborate and useful reply. > > ADVAN13 was used. Changing to ADVAN8 caused "numerical difficulties with > integration routine", but now it is clear where the issue may come from. > > Adding a careful explanation of error codes and recomendations to fix the > issues may help a lot. I am getting quite a few messages like that and it > takes a while to figure out a solution. Sometimes it is necessary to make > random changes in the code and initial values and see if it helps. > > Kind regards, > Pavel > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Elassaiss - Schaap, J. (Jeroen)" ** > Date: Thursday, September 22, 2011 3:25 am > Subject: RE: [NMusers] "ERROR IN LSODA: CODE -1" > To: "[email protected]" ** > Cc: nmusers ** > > > Pavel, > > > > This message looks familiar to me. I do not know about specifics > > of the error code, but LSODA is the integrator behind ADVAN13. > > You can safely assume that it has some problems with integration > > of your $DES block. You could check e.g. parameters that have > > become too large etc. > > > > Unsatisfactory answer, actually. Some googling gave back this > > link: > http://hosho.ees.hokudai.ac.jp/~kubo/Rdoc/library/deSolve/html/lsoda.html > > where LSODA return values are mentioned. "[...]conditions under > > which the last call to lsoda returned. 2 if LSODA was > > successful, -1 if excess work done, -2 means excess accuracy > > requested. (Tolerances too small), -3 means illegal input > > detected. (See printed message.), -4 means repeated error test > > failures. (Check all input), -5 means repeated convergence > > failures. (Perhaps bad Jacobian supplied or wrong choice of MF > > or tolerances.), -6 means error weight became zero during > > problem. (Solution component i vanished, and atol or atol(i) = > > 0.) " > > > > Still not satisfying. More digging revealed the documentation > > imbedded in fortran code in the odesolve package. The paragraphs > > on the returned istate: > > > > " > > c on output, istate has the following values and meanings. > > c 1 means nothing was done, as tout was equal to t with > > c istate = 1 on input. (however, an internal > > counter was > > c set to detect and prevent repeated calls of this type.) > > c 2 means the integration was performed successfully. > > c -1 means an excessive amount of work (more than mxstep > > c steps) was done on this call, before completing the > > c requested task, but the integration was otherwise > > c successful as far as t. (mxstep is an optional input > > c and is normally 500.) to continue, the user may > > c simply reset istate to a value .gt. 1 and call again > > c (the excess work step counter will be reset to 0). > > c in addition, the user may increase mxstep to avoid > > c this error return (see below on optional inputs). > > c -2 means too much accuracy was requested for the precision > > c of the machine being used. this was detected before > > c completing the requested task, but the integration > > c was successful as far as t. to continue, the tolerance > > c parameters must be reset, and istate must be set > > c to 3. the optional output tolsf may be used for this > > c purpose. (note.. if this condition is detected before > > c taking any steps, then an illegal input return > > c (istate = -3) occurs instead.) > > c -3 means illegal input was detected, before taking any > > c integration steps. see written message for details. > > c note.. if the solver detects an infinite loop of calls > > c to the solver with illegal input, it will cause > > c the run to stop. > > c -4 means there were repeated error test failures on > > c one attempted step, before completing the requested > > c task, but the integration was successful as far > > as t. > > c the problem may have a singularity, or the input > > c may be inappropriate. > > c -5 means there were repeated convergence test > > failures on > > c one attempted step, before completing the requested > > c task, but the integration was successful as far > > as t. > > c this may be caused by an inaccurate jacobian matrix, > > c if one is being used. > > c -6 means ewt(i) became zero for some i during the > > c integration. pure relative error control (atol(i)=0.0) > > c was requested on a variable which has now vanished. > > c the integration was successful as far as t. > > c -7 means the length of rwork and/or iwork was too > > small to > > c proceed, but the integration was successful as > > far as t. > > c this happens when lsoda chooses to switch methods > > c but lrw and/or liw is too small for the new method. > > c > > c note.. since the normal output value of istate is 2, > > c it does not need to be reset for normal continuation. > > c also, since a negative input value of istate will be > > c regarded as illegal, a negative output value requires the > > c user to change it, and possibly other inputs, before > > c calling the solver again. > > " > > > > Which says that -1 indicates that the solver actually has > > succeeded and nonmem could have continued by setting istate to 2 > > and mxstep to a larger value.... although completing the run > > could obviously take much more time. > > > > For the nonmem development team: would it be an idea to (1) > > include LSODA return codes in the html help and (2) allow the > > user control of the mxstep input to ADVAN13? > > > > Best regards, > > Jeroen > > > > > > J. Elassaiss-Schaap > > Scientist PK/PD > > MSD > > PO Box 20, 5340 BH Oss, Netherlands > > Phone: + 31 412 66 9320 > > Fax: + 31 412 66 2506 > > e-mail: [email protected] > > > > ________________________________ > > From: [email protected] [mailto:owner- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] > > Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 05:41 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [NMusers] "ERROR IN LSODA: CODE -1" > > > > > > Hello NONMEM Users, > > > > What is "ERROR IN LSODA: CODE -1"? Is there a list of explaned > > error codes somewhere? > > > > Thank you! > > > > Pavel > > Notice: This e-mail message, together with any attachments, contains > > information of Merck & Co., Inc. (One Merck Drive, Whitehouse Station, > > New Jersey, USA 08889), and/or its affiliates Direct contact > > informationfor affiliates is available at > > http://www.merck.com/contact/contacts.html) that may be confidential, > > proprietary copyrighted and/or legally privileged. It is > > intended solely > > for the use of the individual or entity named on this message. > > If you are > > not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, > > please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete it > > from > > your system. > > > -- /Jan-Stefan