Paper detail

Goodness-of-fit statistics for approximate Bayesian computation

Approximate Bayesian computation is a statistical framework that uses numerical simulations to calibrate and compare models. Instead of computing likelihood functions, Approximate Bayesian computation relies on numerical simulations, which makes it applicable to complex models in ecology and evolution. As usual for statistical modeling, evaluating goodness-of-fit is a fundamental step for Approximate Bayesian Computation. Here, we introduce a goodness-of-fit approach based on hypothesis-testing. We introduce two test statistics based on the mean distance between numerical summaries of the data and simulated ones. One test statistic relies on summaries simulated with the prior predictive distribution whereas the other one relies on simulations from the posterior predictive distribution. For different coalescent models, we find that the statistics are well calibrated, meaning that the type I error can be controlled. However, the statistical power of the two statistics is extremely variable across models ranging from 20% to 100%. The difference of power between the two statistics is negligible in models of demographic inference but substantial in an additional and purely statistical example. When analyzing resequencing data to evaluate models of human demography, the two statistics confirm that an out-of-Africa bottleneck cannot be rejected for Asiatic and European data. We also consider two speciation models in the context of a butterfly species complex. One goodness-of-fit statistic indicates a poor fit for both models, and the numerical summaries causing the poor fit were identified using posterior predictive checks. Statistical tests for goodness-of-fit should foster evaluation of model fit in Approximate Bayesian Computation. The test statistic based on simulations from the prior predictive distribution is implemented in the gfit function of the R abc package.

preprint2016arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.