State-space likelihoods for nonlinear fisheries time-series
Abstract
State-space models are commonly used to incorporate process and observation errors in analysis of fisheries time series. A gap in analysis methods has been the lack of classical likelihood methods for nonlinear state-space models. We evaluate a method that uses weighted kernel density estimates of Bayesian posterior samples to estimate likelihoods (Monte Carlo Kernel Likelihoods, MCKL). Classical likelihoods require integration over the state-space, and we compare MCKL to the widely used errors-in-variables (EV) method, which estimates states jointly with parameters by maximizing a nonintegrated likelihood. For a simulated, linear, autoregressive model and a Schaefer model fit to cape hake (Merluccius capensis × M. paradoxus) data, classical likelihoods outperform EV likelihoods, which give asymptotically biased parameter estimates and inaccurate confidence regions. Our results on the importance of integrated state-space likelihoods also support the value of Bayesian analysis with Monte Carlo posterior integration. Both approaches provide valuable insights and can be used complementarily. Previously, Bayesian analysis was the only option for incorporating process and observation errors with complex nonlinear models. The MCKL method provides a classical approach for such models, so that choice of analysis approach need not depend on model complexity.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The marginal likelihood approach possesses superior statistical properties compared to the penalized likelihood approach.
“researchers have found that, compared to the penalized likelihood approach, the marginal likelihood approach possesses superior statistical properties (Maunder and Deriso, 2003; Valpine and Hilborn, 2005).”
From Impacts of phytoplankton availability on bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) recruitment in the Indian Ocean (2024) · cites this paper as Valpine and Hilborn, 2005
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Auger-Méthé, M., Field, C., Albertsen, C. M., Derocher, A. E., Lewis, M. A., Jonsen, I. D., & Mills Flemming, J. (2016) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep26677 · Cited by 141 · see citing works
Wang, Y., Zhang, Y., Geng, Z., & Zhu, J. (2024) · Frontiers in Marine Science · doi:10.3389/fmars.2024.1392273 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Valpine, P. D., & Hilborn, R.
- Venue
- Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
- Publisher
- Canadian Science Publishing
- Published
- 2005-09-01
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1937-1952
- ISSN
- 0706-652X (ISSN-L)
- 1205-7533
- OpenAlex
- W2044763292
- Cited by
- 69
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 2.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Marine and fisheries research
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Control Systems and Identification
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Mathematical and Theoretical Epidemiology and Ecology Models
- Keywords
- state-space model, nonlinear state-space models, marginal likelihood, kernel density estimation, Schaefer model, Cape hake, Merluccius capensis, fisheries time series, parameter estimation bias
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review