Re: IMP and parallelisation

From: Leonid Gibiansky Date: September 19, 2016 technical Source: mail-archive.com
It is a good idea to use RANMETHOD=P at estimation step; then the results should be identical independently of the number of nodes and computer load. Concerning specific behavior .. looks strange. I would try to start from the initial values of the model with the lowest OF and see what happens. Thanks Leonid
Quoted reply history
On 9/19/2016 1:29 PM, Dirk Garmann wrote: > Dear nmusers. > > During a popPK analysis using the M3 method and IMP we observed an > unexpected behavior and would be interested if anyone else observed the > same and can provide guidance/explanations. > > The IMP produces “strange” results in cases requiring a parallelization. > > We observed a general (and strong) trend that with increasing number > of nodes the OBF increases (!) which in my opinion is unexpected if the > number of samples in MC is sufficiently large. > > The initial settings have been as follows: > > Parse Type 1 > > $EST METHOD=IMP INTERACTION LAPLACIAN EONLY=0 ISAMPLE=300 NITER=1000 > CTYPE=3 NOABORT GRD=SN(1,2) NOTHETABOUNDTEST PRINT=1 > > $EST METHOD=IMP INTERACTION NOABORT GRD=SN(1,2) EONLY=1 ISAMPLE=3000 > NITER=30 PRINT=1 > > With 1 node the OBF decreased to ~- 1400 > > Using 16 nodes the OBF stabilized at ~ 1000 > > In both cases the OBF does not fluctuate much after 100 interations > (monitoring of EM step) and seems to be stable (no clear hint for a > local minima). > > Interestingly the estimated residual error is higher using 1 node. With > 16 nodes the variability seems to be shifted to the ETAS. > > This behavior might be a concern for a covariate analysis using IMP > > Our first assumption was that we need to increase iSAMPLE in the EM > step, since a different seed might be used for each node. However even > increasing ISAMPLE to 3000 in the first step did not change the results > much. > > My guess is that it points in the direction of how population values are > updated, but I am not an expert in the implementation of IMP in NONMEM > > We would be highly interested in any guidance and explanation. > > Many thanks in advance > > Dirk > > Freundliche Grüße / Best regards, > > Dirk Garmann > > Head Quantitative Pharmacology > > Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft > > BPH-DD-CS-CP-QP, Quantitative Pharmacology > > Building 0431, 322 > > 51368 Leverkusen, Germany > > Tel: +49 202 365577 > > Fax: > > Mobile: +49 175 3109407 > > E-mail: [email protected]_ > > Web: _ http://www.bayer.com_ > > Vorstand: Dieter Weinand, Vorsitzender | Christoph Bertram > > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Hartmut Klusik > > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin | Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 283 B
Sep 19, 2016 Dirk Garmann IMP and parallelisation
Sep 19, 2016 Leonid Gibiansky Re: IMP and parallelisation