Cited by 69Marine and fisheries researchControl Systems and IdentificationMathematical and Theoretical Epidemiology and Ecology Models

State-space likelihoods for nonlinear fisheries time-series

Valpine, Perry de, Hilborn, Ray·2005·Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

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

Crossref · 10.1139/f05-116

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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).”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Valpine, P. D., & Hilborn, R.
Venue
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
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