-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 53
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
Possible problem with pscale
adjustment in mcmc()
#356
Comments
pscale
adjustment in mcmc()
pscale
adjustment in mcmc()
The default scale for
|
Also, its always best to subtract the mean or median from the RVs so that they are roughly centered around zero. |
Agreed! I usually don't use it either (which is why I think I never ran into the issue before), but we're using RadVel in an assignment for a grad course and we had to use the synth basis. Thank you for the confirmation, I'll include
Thank you, I'll make sure to subtract the mean or median before fitting from now on. I was giving Thanks! EDIT: Added suggestion about documentation |
Hi,
I'm not sure if this is a bug or a problem with how I set my model up, but I faced a problem with the MCMC scale of some paramters. It seems to be related to the lines that set
pscales
in the MCMC code.When using a big value (order of 10^6 or 10^4) for parameters like
tp
orgamma
, the scale value is0.1*val
which, I think, can make the parameters go out of the prior bounds (or far from their expected value).I tested if changing
mcmcscale
to 10^-5 manually for these parameters worked and it does. If this is the expected behaviour and that I did not make a mistake when setting up my model, I feel like it would be useful to document it somewhere as initializing the parameters with a 10% gaussian "ball" can span a lot of parameter values and surprise users. Personally, I typically use a scale around1e-5
except in special cases. I saw that the default for values set to 0 is1e-5
. I feel like this would be a good default value in general: it might cause the chains to converge a bit slower, but it would not cause the initial values to be outside the prior (except for very narrow priors, but I guess a warning could be raised in this case).Let me know what you think, I'm happy to contribute if you think that this requires a modification to the code :)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: