4.6 Article

Inferring the interaction rules of complex systems with graph neural networks and approximate Bayesian computation

期刊

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2022.0676

关键词

Bayesian inference; machine learning; Gaussian processes; collective movement; emergent properties

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Inferring the underlying processes that drive collective behaviour in biological and social systems is a challenging task. Approximate Bayesian computation (ABC) combined with Gaussian process acceleration and graph neural networks can effectively overcome the difficulties of designing specific summary statistics for inference, providing a more automated approach.
Inferring the underlying processes that drive collective behaviour in biological and social systems is a significant statistical and computational challenge. While simulation models have been successful in qualitatively capturing many of the phenomena observed in these systems in a variety of domains, formally fitting these models to data remains intractable. Recently, approximate Bayesian computation (ABC) has been shown to be an effective approach to inference if the likelihood function for a model is unavailable. However, a key difficulty in successfully implementing ABC lies with the design, selection and weighting of appropriate summary statistics, a challenge that is especially acute when modelling high dimensional complex systems. In this work, we combine a Gaussian process accelerated ABC method with the automatic learning of summary statistics via graph neural networks. Our approach bypasses the need to design a model-specific set of summary statistics for inference. Instead, we encode relational inductive biases into a neural network using a graph embedding and then extract summary statistics automatically from simulation data. To evaluate our framework, we use a model of collective animal movement as a test bed and compare our method to a standard summary statistics approach and a linear regression-based algorithm.

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