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

ADMB recdev issue #701

Closed
cgrandin opened this issue Feb 28, 2020 · 12 comments
Closed

ADMB recdev issue #701

cgrandin opened this issue Feb 28, 2020 · 12 comments
Labels
topic: ADMB ADMB issues and related topics topic: SS3 Stock Synthesis 3 related issue

Comments

@cgrandin
Copy link
Collaborator

See #590 which explains it and the ADMB issue: admb-project/admb#107

@kellijohnson-NOAA kellijohnson-NOAA added this to the 2020 assessment milestone Mar 1, 2020
@kellijohnson-NOAA
Copy link
Collaborator

Do we need to explain the non-zero sum simple dev approach more in the document? I think that they asked for this in passing but did not formally document it as a request.

@aaronmberger-nwfsc
Copy link
Collaborator

I don't recall any specifics that were said. I feel like we give it adequate treatment in the bridging section, but it may be beneficial to beef it up. I could go either way on this one.

@andrew-edwards
Copy link
Collaborator

2021?

@cgrandin
Copy link
Collaborator Author

cgrandin commented Mar 2, 2020

I recall them (especially Trevor) asking for a more thorough write-up of it which is why I started this issue, linking the info in one place

@andrew-edwards
Copy link
Collaborator

Given it wasn't a formal request I say we do it for next year ;) Be good to get submitted soon.

@aaronmberger-nwfsc
Copy link
Collaborator

As we don't refer to the rec dev issue really at all in this assessment, @kellijohnson-NOAA and I were thinking that there was no reason to add text to the document itself. However, it would be good to eventually add an explanation here so that we don't forget details. I'm earmarking this for the 2022 assessment, but we really should make some notes here before next year (not today though!).

@cgrandin
Copy link
Collaborator Author

cgrandin commented Feb 8, 2021

I opened this because I was left not fully understanding it, but it can wait until 2022...

@kellijohnson-NOAA
Copy link
Collaborator

Reference the publication that will come out from the Stock Synthesis team.

@kellijohnson-NOAA
Copy link
Collaborator

Problems with the sum to zero constraint wrt Bayesian inference and stan is talked about here on a google group for stan-users.

@aaronmberger-nwfsc
Copy link
Collaborator

Is the main issue described by the post (wrt sum to zero constraint):
[It is something people did in WinBUGS, but it's going to
be a problem in Stan because the posterior over the parameters
(that is, what's defined in the parameters block) isn't proper.
In particular, the no-U-turn sampler won't make U-turns --- it'll
just keep running.]

@kellijohnson-NOAA
Copy link
Collaborator

I think so.

@kellijohnson-NOAA kellijohnson-NOAA added topic: ADMB ADMB issues and related topics topic: SS3 Stock Synthesis 3 related issue labels Jan 31, 2022
@kellijohnson-NOAA
Copy link
Collaborator

Lots more discussion on this topic here in google groups. Essentially, the sum to zero constraint should NOT be used in an MCMC context no matter what.

@kellijohnson-NOAA kellijohnson-NOAA removed their assignment Jan 26, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
topic: ADMB ADMB issues and related topics topic: SS3 Stock Synthesis 3 related issue
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants