Source author record

Natalya Pya

Natalya Pya appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

3works
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2016arXiv

A note on basis dimension selection in generalized additive modelling

Two new approaches for checking the dimension of the basis functions when using penalized regression smoothers are presented. The first approach is a test for adequacy of the basis dimension based on an estimate of the residual variance calculated by differencing residuals that are neighbours according to the smooth covariates. The second approach is based on estimated degrees of freedom for a smooth of the model residuals with respect to the model covariates. In comparison with basis dimension selection algorithms based on smoothness selection criterion (GCV, AIC, REML) the above procedures are computationally efficient enough for routine use as part of model checking.

preprint2016arXiv

Smoothing parameter and model selection for general smooth models

This paper discusses a general framework for smoothing parameter estimation for models with regular likelihoods constructed in terms of unknown smooth functions of covariates. Gaussian random effects and parametric terms may also be present. By construction the method is numerically stable and convergent, and enables smoothing parameter uncertainty to be quantified. The latter enables us to fix a well known problem with AIC for such models. The smooth functions are represented by reduced rank spline like smoothers, with associated quadratic penalties measuring function smoothness. Model estimation is by penalized likelihood maximization, where the smoothing parameters controlling the extent of penalization are estimated by Laplace approximate marginal likelihood. The methods cover, for example, generalized additive models for non-exponential family responses (for example beta, ordered categorical, scaled t distribution, negative binomial and Tweedie distributions), generalized additive models for location scale and shape (for example two stage zero inflation models, and Gaussian location-scale models), Cox proportional hazards models and multivariate additive models. The framework reduces the implementation of new model classes to the coding of some standard derivatives of the log likelihood.

preprint2015arXiv

A comparison of inferential methods for highly non-linear state space models in ecology and epidemiology

Highly non-linear, chaotic or near chaotic, dynamic models are important in fields such as ecology and epidemiology: for example, pest species and diseases often display highly non-linear dynamics. However, such models are problematic from the point of view of statistical inference. The defining feature of chaotic and near chaotic systems is extreme sensitivity to small changes in system states and parameters, and this can interfere with inference. There are two main classes of methods for circumventing these difficulties: information reduction approaches, such as Approximate Bayesian Computation or Synthetic Likelihood and state space methods, such as Particle Markov chain Monte Carlo, Iterated Filtering or Parameter Cascading. The purpose of this article is to compare the methods, in order to reach conclusions about how to approach inference with such models in practice. We show that neither class of methods is universally superior to the other. We show that state space methods can suffer multimodality problems in settings with low process noise or model mis-specification, leading to bias toward stable dynamics and high process noise. Information reduction methods avoid this problem but, under the correct model and with sufficient process noise, state space methods lead to substantially sharper inference than information reduction methods. More practically, there are also differences in the tuning requirements of different methods. Our overall conclusion is that model development and checking should probably be performed using an information reduction method with low tuning requirements, while for final inference it is likely to be better to switch to a state space method, checking results against the information reduction approach.