4.7 Article

Reliable ABC model choice via random forests

Journal

BIOINFORMATICS
Volume 32, Issue 6, Pages 859-866

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv684

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. ERA-Net [BiodivERsA2013-48]
  2. FRB
  3. ANR
  4. MEDDE
  5. BELSPO
  6. PT-DLR
  7. DFG, BiodivERsA
  8. Labex NUMEV

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Motivation: Approximate Bayesian computation (ABC) methods provide an elaborate approach to Bayesian inference on complex models, including model choice. Both theoretical arguments and simulation experiments indicate, however, that model posterior probabilities may be poorly evaluated by standard ABC techniques. Results: We propose a novel approach based on a machine learning tool named random forests (RF) to conduct selection among the highly complex models covered by ABC algorithms. We thus modify the way Bayesian model selection is both understood and operated, in that we rephrase the inferential goal as a classification problem, first predicting the model that best fits the data with RF and postponing the approximation of the posterior probability of the selected model for a second stage also relying on RF. Compared with earlier implementations of ABC model choice, the ABC RF approach offers several potential improvements: (i) it often has a larger discriminative power among the competing models, (ii) it is more robust against the number and choice of statistics summarizing the data, (iii) the computing effort is drastically reduced (with a gain in computation efficiency of at least 50) and (iv) it includes an approximation of the posterior probability of the selected model. The call to RF will undoubtedly extend the range of size of datasets and complexity of models that ABC can handle. We illustrate the power of this novel methodology by analyzing controlled experiments as well as genuine population genetics datasets.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available