In�s - Perhaps your observations aren't linearly independent- for example
are there any duplicates or extensive use of dummy variables with all
combinations? Otherwise, perhaps your mataccum command was somehow not
correct. Could you include the description of your data and how you used the
command - or even the data itself in your reply?
Al
-----Original Message-----
From: Ines Butler [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 11:06 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: st: RE: RE: RE: Matrix inversion "bug"
Al,
Thank you for your help.
I do have more observations than variables (38 observatiosn, 10 variables).
Do you have any idea why this might be happening or if there is something to
do about it ?
Thanks again.
Regards
In�s Butler
IERAL Fundaci�n Mediterr�nea
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
www.ieral.org
(54 11) 4312 4114
-----Mensaje original-----
De: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]En nombre de FEIVESON, ALAN
H. (AL) (JSC-SK) (NASA)
Enviado el: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 12:49 PM
Para: '[email protected]'
Asunto: st: RE: RE: Matrix inversion "bug"
In�s - Do you have at least as many observations as variables? If not, the
matrix will not be positive definite - only semidefinite. If you have n
variables, you must have at least n linearly independent observations row
vectors for the accumulated matrix to be positive definite. Your problem is
not the same as Mark's. If your matrix were not symmetric because of a
precision error, choloesky would return the message "matrix not symmetric"
instead of "matrix not positive definite".
Al Feiveson
-----Original Message-----
From: Ines Butler [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 9:45 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: st: RE: Matrix inversion "bug"
Mark
I think I am encountering with a similar problem to the one you mention
about symentric matrices.
I am usingmat function 'mat accum' with the options noconstant and
deviations to construct a matrix from data which should return a positive
definite matrix (because divided by N-1 is the covariance matrix). However,
when I try to use cholesky factorization, an error message appears saying
that the matrix is not positive definite.
Do you have any idea on how to cope with this problem?
Thank you very much!
In�s Butler
IERAL Fundaci�n Mediterr�nea
-----Mensaje original-----
De: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]En nombre de Mark Schaffer
Enviado el: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:19 PM
Para: Statalist
CC: Mark Schaffer
Asunto: st: Matrix inversion "bug"
Dear Statalisters:
Every now and then I encounter a matrix inversion "bug" in Stata. It
cropped up yet again last week when an ivreg2 user wrote to me, and I
finally decided to see what my fellow Statalisters think of it.
Say we have a matrix M which is calculated as X*S*X'. S is symmetric and
so is M. We want to invert M and so the best thing to do is to use
-syminv-. The Stata programming manual tells us to use -syminv- instead
of -inv- wherever possible.
The problem is this. Although M is guaranteed to be symmetric in
principle, it is not guaranteed to be symmetric in practice. Tiny rounding
errors can arise when Stata multiplies matrices. Once in a while, M will
be very slightly non-symmetric, but when it is, -syminv- will exit with an
error.
When I first encountered this, I wrote to Stata Technical Support, and I
received a very helpful and simple fix: prior to the call to syminv, simply
do the following:
mat M = (M+M')/2
This makes the matrix symmetric. Works, no problem. But...
Arguably, this is just a fix for what is really a Stata bug. Ought it be
possible for Stata's code to recognise when the result of a matrix
multiplication is supposed to be a symmetric matrix?
Whether or not this should be called a "bug", it may still be the case that
it's not possible for our friends at Stata Corp to fix it. If so, then
there are several possibilities:
(1) Prior to using -syminv-, we should always (?) symmetrize the matrix we
want to invert using the code fragment above.
(2) Any (?) time we call -syminv-, we should use -capture-. If the
inversion using -syminv- fails, we should call -inv-.
(3) Neither of the above is very pretty. An alternative is to ask our
Stata Corp friends to, say, add a variant of the -syminv- function, say
-syminv2-. This function would automatically symmetrize a square matrix
before inverting it.
What do you think?
--Mark
________________________________________________________________
DISCLAIMER:
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential
and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient
you are prohibited from using any of the information contained
in this e-mail. In such a case, please destroy all copies in
your possession and notify the sender by reply e-mail. Heriot
Watt University does not accept liability or responsibility
for changes made to this e-mail after it was sent, or for
viruses transmitted through this e-mail. Opinions, comments,
conclusions and other information in this e-mail that do not
relate to the official business of Heriot Watt University are
not endorsed by it.
________________________________________________________________
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
