Bayesian model selection for spatial capture–recapture models

Abstract A vast amount of ecological knowledge generated over the past two decades has hinged upon the ability of model selection methods to discriminate among various ecological hypotheses. The last decade has seen the rise of Bayesian hierarchical models in ecology. Consequently, commonly used too...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Soumen Dey, Mohan Delampady, Arjun M. Gopalaswamy
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2019-10-01
Series:Ecology and Evolution
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5551
_version_ 1818719981958856704
author Soumen Dey
Mohan Delampady
Arjun M. Gopalaswamy
author_facet Soumen Dey
Mohan Delampady
Arjun M. Gopalaswamy
author_sort Soumen Dey
collection DOAJ
description Abstract A vast amount of ecological knowledge generated over the past two decades has hinged upon the ability of model selection methods to discriminate among various ecological hypotheses. The last decade has seen the rise of Bayesian hierarchical models in ecology. Consequently, commonly used tools, such as the AIC, become largely inapplicable and there appears to be no consensus about a particular model selection tool that can be universally applied. We focus on a specific class of competing Bayesian spatial capture–recapture (SCR) models and apply and evaluate some of the recommended Bayesian model selection tools: (1) Bayes Factor—using (a) Gelfand‐Dey and (b) harmonic mean methods, (2) Deviance Information Criterion (DIC), (3) Watanabe‐Akaike's Information Criterion (WAIC) and (4) posterior predictive loss criterion. In all, we evaluate 25 variants of model selection tools in our study. We evaluate these model selection tools from the standpoint of selecting the “true” model and parameter estimation. In all, we generate 120 simulated data sets using the true model and assess the frequency with which the true model is selected and how well the tool estimates N (population size), a parameter of much importance to ecologists. We find that when information content is low in the data, no particular model selection tool can be recommended to help realize, simultaneously, both the goals of model selection and parameter estimation. But, in general (when we consider both the objectives together), we recommend the use of our application of the Bayes Factor (Gelfand‐Dey with MAP approximation) for Bayesian SCR models. Our study highlights the point that although new model selection tools are emerging (e.g., WAIC) in the applied statistics literature, those tools based on sound theory even under approximation may still perform much better.
first_indexed 2024-12-17T20:15:35Z
format Article
id doaj.art-3e7f4539a5914527857c447ee04f2840
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2045-7758
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-17T20:15:35Z
publishDate 2019-10-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Ecology and Evolution
spelling doaj.art-3e7f4539a5914527857c447ee04f28402022-12-21T21:34:07ZengWileyEcology and Evolution2045-77582019-10-01920115691158310.1002/ece3.5551Bayesian model selection for spatial capture–recapture modelsSoumen Dey0Mohan Delampady1Arjun M. Gopalaswamy2Statistics and Mathematics Unit Indian Statistical Institute Bangalore IndiaStatistics and Mathematics Unit Indian Statistical Institute Bangalore IndiaStatistics and Mathematics Unit Indian Statistical Institute Bangalore IndiaAbstract A vast amount of ecological knowledge generated over the past two decades has hinged upon the ability of model selection methods to discriminate among various ecological hypotheses. The last decade has seen the rise of Bayesian hierarchical models in ecology. Consequently, commonly used tools, such as the AIC, become largely inapplicable and there appears to be no consensus about a particular model selection tool that can be universally applied. We focus on a specific class of competing Bayesian spatial capture–recapture (SCR) models and apply and evaluate some of the recommended Bayesian model selection tools: (1) Bayes Factor—using (a) Gelfand‐Dey and (b) harmonic mean methods, (2) Deviance Information Criterion (DIC), (3) Watanabe‐Akaike's Information Criterion (WAIC) and (4) posterior predictive loss criterion. In all, we evaluate 25 variants of model selection tools in our study. We evaluate these model selection tools from the standpoint of selecting the “true” model and parameter estimation. In all, we generate 120 simulated data sets using the true model and assess the frequency with which the true model is selected and how well the tool estimates N (population size), a parameter of much importance to ecologists. We find that when information content is low in the data, no particular model selection tool can be recommended to help realize, simultaneously, both the goals of model selection and parameter estimation. But, in general (when we consider both the objectives together), we recommend the use of our application of the Bayes Factor (Gelfand‐Dey with MAP approximation) for Bayesian SCR models. Our study highlights the point that although new model selection tools are emerging (e.g., WAIC) in the applied statistics literature, those tools based on sound theory even under approximation may still perform much better.https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5551Bayes factorsBayesian inferenceDIChierarchical modelsposterior predictive lossWAIC
spellingShingle Soumen Dey
Mohan Delampady
Arjun M. Gopalaswamy
Bayesian model selection for spatial capture–recapture models
Ecology and Evolution
Bayes factors
Bayesian inference
DIC
hierarchical models
posterior predictive loss
WAIC
title Bayesian model selection for spatial capture–recapture models
title_full Bayesian model selection for spatial capture–recapture models
title_fullStr Bayesian model selection for spatial capture–recapture models
title_full_unstemmed Bayesian model selection for spatial capture–recapture models
title_short Bayesian model selection for spatial capture–recapture models
title_sort bayesian model selection for spatial capture recapture models
topic Bayes factors
Bayesian inference
DIC
hierarchical models
posterior predictive loss
WAIC
url https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5551
work_keys_str_mv AT soumendey bayesianmodelselectionforspatialcapturerecapturemodels
AT mohandelampady bayesianmodelselectionforspatialcapturerecapturemodels
AT arjunmgopalaswamy bayesianmodelselectionforspatialcapturerecapturemodels