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

Confirmation on what went into the likelihood function (table 2) and the estimated parameters #4

Open
iantaylor-NOAA opened this issue May 17, 2022 · 4 comments
Assignees

Comments

@iantaylor-NOAA
Copy link
Owner

iantaylor-NOAA commented May 17, 2022

Item (b2) from Andre's to-do list was "Confirmation on what went intro the likelihood function (table 2) and the estimated parameters" which Rick suggested should be the focus for @k-doering-NOAA and @iantaylor-NOAA.

Here's Table 2 with some draft edits in bold:

The estimable parameters of the two models.

Parameter Treatment in SS3 Treatment in Slice
Unfished recruitment Estimated N/A
Von Bert. growth parameters Estimated ?
Recruitment Age-0; penalty of deviations from the mean Age-2; estimated independently
Fishing mortality Estimated from the catch Related to fishing effort
Selectivity L50 and L95 estimated L50 and L95 estimated
Likelihood components
Index Log-normal N/A
Length moments (by cohort) N/A [Ian: I'm not totally sure what this means]
Length-at-age excluded from likelihood but expected values computed for comparison with observed
Age-composition excluded from likelihood but expected values calculated for comparison with observed
Length-composition multinomial*
Conditional age-at-length multinomial* N/A

* the multinomial likelihoods in Stock Synthesis included a value of 0.0001 added to expected and observed values in each bin

@k-doering-NOAA, can you check on which parameters are estimated in the most recent model files and add some rows if needed? Feel free to modify my proposed additions above as well.

@Rick-Methot-NOAA
Copy link
Collaborator

Length moments would include mean length as output in the Fit_Len table and used for the Francis weighting

@iantaylor-NOAA
Copy link
Owner Author

@Rick-Methot-NOAA, thank you for chiming in on that. I'm guessing that N/A is still the best answer with regard to likelihood contribution, right?

@k-doering-NOAA
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks @iantaylor-NOAA for getting started on this. Here's a table of all the model parameters used in the Stock Synthesis EMs and whether they were estimated or not. (created using code committed in ca381b1):

name estimated_or_fixed init
NatM_p_1_Fem_GP_1 fixed 0.1500000
L_at_Amin_Fem_GP_1 estimated 20.0000000
L_at_Amax_Fem_GP_1 estimated 100.0000000
VonBert_K_Fem_GP_1 estimated 0.1000000
CV_young_Fem_GP_1 estimated 0.1000000
CV_old_Fem_GP_1 estimated 0.2500000
Wtlen_1_Fem_GP_1 fixed 0.0000217
Wtlen_2_Fem_GP_1 fixed 2.8600000
Mat50%_Fem_GP_1 fixed 55.0000000
Mat_slope_Fem_GP_1 fixed -0.2500000
Eggs/kg_inter_Fem_GP_1 fixed 1.0000000
Eggs/kg_slope_wt_Fem_GP_1 fixed 0.0000000
CohortGrowDev fixed 1.0000000
FracFemale_GP_1 fixed 0.5000000
SR_LN(R0) estimated 10.0000000
SR_BH_steep fixed 1.0000000
SR_sigmaR fixed 0.5000000
SR_regime fixed 0.0000000
SR_autocorr fixed 0.0000000
LnQ_base_fishery(1) fixed -6.9798000
SizeSel_P_1_fishery(1) estimated 40.0000000
SizeSel_P_2_fishery(1) estimated 1.0000000

@k-doering-NOAA
Copy link
Collaborator

Also, the ctl file that can be looked at for settings is: ctl template. It was used for the one way trip runs. This initF template was used for the baseline runs, but only differs in that it has 2 initF parameters and a different Platoon_between/within_stdev_ratio (which hopefully this setting makes sense?)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants