↓ Skip to main content

Forecasting and Uncertainty Quantification Using a Hybrid of Mechanistic and Non-mechanistic Models for an Age-Structured Population Model

Overview of attention for article published in Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Forecasting and Uncertainty Quantification Using a Hybrid of Mechanistic and Non-mechanistic Models for an Age-Structured Population Model
Published in
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11538-018-0421-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

John Lagergren, Amanda Reeder, Franz Hamilton, Ralph C. Smith, Kevin B. Flores

Abstract

In this paper, we present a new method for the prediction and uncertainty quantification of data-driven multivariate systems. Traditionally, either mechanistic or non-mechanistic modeling methodologies have been used for prediction; however, it is uncommon for the two to be incorporated together. We compare the forecast accuracy of mechanistic modeling, using Bayesian inference, a non-mechanistic modeling approach based on state space reconstruction, and a novel hybrid methodology composed of the two for an age-structured population data set. The data come from cannibalistic flour beetles, in which it is observed that the adults preying on the eggs and pupae result in non-equilibrium population dynamics. Uncertainty quantification methods for the hybrid models are outlined and illustrated for these data. We perform an analysis of the results from Bayesian inference for the mechanistic model and hybrid models to suggest reasons why hybrid modeling methodology may enable more accurate forecasts of multivariate systems than traditional approaches.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 32%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 2 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Mathematics 5 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 11%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 5%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 5%
Decision Sciences 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 7 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 June 2018.
All research outputs
#15,538,060
of 23,092,602 outputs
Outputs from Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
#727
of 1,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,017
of 329,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
#20
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,092,602 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,105 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,111 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.