泊松近似似然与粒子滤波的比较

Yize Hao, Aaron A. Abkemeier, Edward L. Ionides
{"title":"泊松近似似然与粒子滤波的比较","authors":"Yize Hao, Aaron A. Abkemeier, Edward L. Ionides","doi":"arxiv-2409.12173","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Filtering algorithms are fundamental for inference on partially observed\nstochastic dynamic systems, since they provide access to the likelihood\nfunction and hence enable likelihood-based or Bayesian inference. A novel\nPoisson approximate likelihood (PAL) filter was introduced by Whitehouse et al.\n(2023). PAL employs a Poisson approximation to conditional densities, offering\na fast approximation to the likelihood function for a certain subset of\npartially observed Markov process models. A central piece of evidence for PAL\nis the comparison in Table 1 of Whitehouse et al. (2023), which claims a large\nimprovement for PAL over a standard particle filter algorithm. This evidence,\nbased on a model and data from a previous scientific study by Stocks et al.\n(2020), might suggest that researchers confronted with similar models should\nuse PAL rather than particle filter methods. Taken at face value, this evidence\nalso reduces the credibility of Stocks et al. (2020) by indicating a\nshortcoming with the numerical methods that they used. However, we show that\nthe comparison of log-likelihood values made by Whitehouse et al. (2023) is\nflawed because their PAL calculations were carried out using a dataset scaled\ndifferently from the previous study. If PAL and the particle filter are applied\nto the same data, the advantage claimed for PAL disappears. On simulations\nwhere the model is correctly specified, the particle filter outperforms PAL.","PeriodicalId":501425,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - STAT - Methodology","volume":"44 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Poisson approximate likelihood compared to the particle filter\",\"authors\":\"Yize Hao, Aaron A. Abkemeier, Edward L. Ionides\",\"doi\":\"arxiv-2409.12173\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Filtering algorithms are fundamental for inference on partially observed\\nstochastic dynamic systems, since they provide access to the likelihood\\nfunction and hence enable likelihood-based or Bayesian inference. A novel\\nPoisson approximate likelihood (PAL) filter was introduced by Whitehouse et al.\\n(2023). PAL employs a Poisson approximation to conditional densities, offering\\na fast approximation to the likelihood function for a certain subset of\\npartially observed Markov process models. A central piece of evidence for PAL\\nis the comparison in Table 1 of Whitehouse et al. (2023), which claims a large\\nimprovement for PAL over a standard particle filter algorithm. This evidence,\\nbased on a model and data from a previous scientific study by Stocks et al.\\n(2020), might suggest that researchers confronted with similar models should\\nuse PAL rather than particle filter methods. Taken at face value, this evidence\\nalso reduces the credibility of Stocks et al. (2020) by indicating a\\nshortcoming with the numerical methods that they used. However, we show that\\nthe comparison of log-likelihood values made by Whitehouse et al. (2023) is\\nflawed because their PAL calculations were carried out using a dataset scaled\\ndifferently from the previous study. If PAL and the particle filter are applied\\nto the same data, the advantage claimed for PAL disappears. On simulations\\nwhere the model is correctly specified, the particle filter outperforms PAL.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501425,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"arXiv - STAT - Methodology\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"arXiv - STAT - Methodology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/arxiv-2409.12173\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - STAT - Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2409.12173","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

滤波算法是部分观测随机动态系统推断的基础,因为它们提供了对似然函数的访问,从而实现基于似然或贝叶斯的推断。怀特豪斯等人(2023 年)提出了一种新型泊松近似似然(PAL)滤波器。PAL 对条件密度采用泊松近似,为部分观测的马尔可夫过程模型的某些子集提供了快速近似似然函数。怀特豪斯等人(2023 年)在表 1 中对 PAL 进行了比较,认为 PAL 比标准粒子滤波算法有很大改进。这一证据基于 Stocks 等人(2020 年)以前的一项科学研究中的模型和数据,可能表明研究人员在面对类似模型时应使用 PAL 而不是粒子滤波方法。从表面价值来看,这一证据也降低了斯托克斯等人(2020 年)的可信度,因为它表明他们使用的数值方法存在缺陷。然而,我们发现怀特豪斯等人(2023 年)的对数似然值比较存在缺陷,因为他们的 PAL 计算使用的数据集比例与前一项研究不同。如果将 PAL 和粒子过滤器应用于相同的数据,那么 PAL 的优势就会消失。在正确指定模型的模拟中,粒子滤波器的性能优于 PAL。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Poisson approximate likelihood compared to the particle filter
Filtering algorithms are fundamental for inference on partially observed stochastic dynamic systems, since they provide access to the likelihood function and hence enable likelihood-based or Bayesian inference. A novel Poisson approximate likelihood (PAL) filter was introduced by Whitehouse et al. (2023). PAL employs a Poisson approximation to conditional densities, offering a fast approximation to the likelihood function for a certain subset of partially observed Markov process models. A central piece of evidence for PAL is the comparison in Table 1 of Whitehouse et al. (2023), which claims a large improvement for PAL over a standard particle filter algorithm. This evidence, based on a model and data from a previous scientific study by Stocks et al. (2020), might suggest that researchers confronted with similar models should use PAL rather than particle filter methods. Taken at face value, this evidence also reduces the credibility of Stocks et al. (2020) by indicating a shortcoming with the numerical methods that they used. However, we show that the comparison of log-likelihood values made by Whitehouse et al. (2023) is flawed because their PAL calculations were carried out using a dataset scaled differently from the previous study. If PAL and the particle filter are applied to the same data, the advantage claimed for PAL disappears. On simulations where the model is correctly specified, the particle filter outperforms PAL.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Poisson approximate likelihood compared to the particle filter Optimising the Trade-Off Between Type I and Type II Errors: A Review and Extensions Bias Reduction in Matched Observational Studies with Continuous Treatments: Calipered Non-Bipartite Matching and Bias-Corrected Estimation and Inference Forecasting age distribution of life-table death counts via α-transformation Probability-scale residuals for event-time data
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1