4.6 Article

Overcoming long Bayesian run times in integrated fisheries stock assessments

期刊

ICES JOURNAL OF MARINE SCIENCE
卷 76, 期 6, 页码 1477-1488

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsz059

关键词

AD Model Builder; Bayesian inference; fisheries stock assessment; no-U-turn sampler; Stock Synthesis

资金

  1. Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean (JISAO) under NOAA [NA15OAR4320063, 2018-0171]
  2. Washington Sea Grant, University of Washington [NA14OAR4170078]
  3. Richard C. and Lois M. Worthington Endowed Professorship in Fisheries Management

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bayesian inference is an appealing alternative to maximum likelihood estimation, but estimation can be prohibitively long for integrated fisheries stock assessments. Here, we investigated potential causes of long run times including high dimensionality, complex model structure, and inefficient Bayesian algorithms for four US assessments written in AD Model Builder (ADMB), both custom built and Stock Synthesis models. The biggest culprit for long run times was overparameterization and they were reduced from months to days by adding priors and turning off estimation for poorly-informed parameters (i.e. regularization), especially for selectivity parameters. Thus, regularization is a necessary step in converting assessments from frequentist to Bayesian frameworks. We also tested the usefulness of the no-U-turn sampler (NUTS), a Bayesian algorithm recently added to ADMB, and the R package adnuts that allows for easy implementation of NUTS and parallel computation. These additions further reduced run times and better sampled posterior distributions than existing Bayesian algorithms in ADMB, and for both of these reasons we recommend using NUTS for inference. Between regularization, a faster algorithm, and parallel computation, we expect models to run 50-50 000 times faster for most current stock assessment models, opening the door to routine usage of Bayesian methods for management of fish stocks.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据