Entropy, Statistical Evidence, and Scientific Inference: Evidence Functions in Theory and Applications

Scope and Goals of the Special Issue: There is a growing realization that despite being the essential tool of modern data-based scientific discovery and model testing, statistics has major problems [...].

Assessing the Global and Local Uncertainty of Scientific Evidence in the Presence of Model Misspecification

Scientists need to compare the support for models based on observed phenomena. The main goal of the evidential paradigm is to quantify the strength of evidence in the data for a reference model relative to an alternative model. This is done via an evidence function, such as ΔSIC, an estimator of the sample size scaled difference of divergences between the generating mechanism and the competing models. To use evidence, either for decision making or as a guide to the accumulation of knowledge, an understanding of the uncertainty in the evidence is needed. This uncertainty is well characterized by the standard statistical theory of estimation. Unfortunately, the standard theory breaks down if the models are misspecified, as is commonly the case in scientific studies. We develop non-parametric bootstrap methodologies for estimating the sampling distribution of the evidence estimator under model misspecification. This sampling distribution allows us to determine how secure we are in our evidential statement. We characterize this uncertainty in the strength of evidence with two different types of confidence intervals, which we term “global” and “local.” We discuss how evidence uncertainty can be used to improve scientific inference and illustrate this with a reanalysis of the model identification problem in a prominent landscape ecology study using structural equations.

Study design and parameter estimability for spatial and temporal ecological models

The statistical tools available to ecologists are becoming increasingly sophisticated, allowing more complex, mechanistic models to be fit to ecological data. Such models have the potential to provide new insights into the processes underlying ecological patterns, but the inferences made are limited by the information in the data. Statistical nonestimability of model parameters due to insufficient information in the data is a problem too‐often ignored by ecologists employing complex models. Here, we show how a new statistical computing method called data cloning can be used to inform study design by assessing the estimability of parameters under different spatial and temporal scales of sampling. A case study of parasite transmission from farmed to wild salmon highlights that assessing the estimability of ecologically relevant parameters should be a key step when designing studies in which fitting complex mechanistic models is the end goal.

State-space models' dirty little secrets: even simple linear Gaussian models can have estimation problems

State-space models (SSMs) are increasingly used in ecology to model time-series such as animal movement paths and population dynamics. This type of hierarchical model is often structured to account for two levels of variability: biological stochasticity and measurement error. SSMs are flexible. They can model linear and nonlinear processes using a variety of statistical distributions. Recent ecological SSMs are often complex, with a large number of parameters to estimate. Through a simulation study, we show that even simple linear Gaussian SSMs can suffer from parameter- and state-estimation problems. We demonstrate that these problems occur primarily when measurement error is larger than biological stochasticity, the condition that often drives ecologists to use SSMs. Using an animal movement example, we show how these estimation problems can affect ecological inference. Biased parameter estimates of a SSM describing the movement of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) result in overestimating their energy expenditure. We suggest potential solutions, but show that it often remains difficult to estimate parameters. While SSMs are powerful tools, they can give misleading results and we urge ecologists to assess whether the parameters can be estimated accurately before drawing ecological conclusions from their results.

Models for managing wildlife disease

Modelling wildlife disease poses some unique challenges. Wildlife disease systems are data poor in comparison with human or livestock disease systems, and the impact of disease on population size is often the key question of interest. This review concentrates specifically on the application of dynamic models to evaluate and guide management strategies. Models have proved useful particularly in two areas. They have been widely used to evaluate vaccination strategies, both for protecting endangered species and for preventing spillover from wildlife to humans or livestock. They have also been extensively used to evaluate culling strategies, again both for diseases in species of conservation interest and to prevent spillover. In addition, models are important to evaluate the potential of parasites and pathogens as biological control agents. The review concludes by identifying some key research gaps, which are further development of models of macroparasites, deciding on appropriate levels of complexity, modelling genetic management and connecting models to data.