Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Poisson approximate likelihood compared to the particle filter

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2409.12173 v1 pith:BKM7FXCP submitted 2024-09-18 stat.ME

classification stat.ME
keywords filterparticlelikelihoodevidencepoissonwhitehouseapproximateapproximation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Filtering algorithms are fundamental for inference on partially observed stochastic dynamic systems, since they provide access to the likelihood function and hence enable likelihood-based or Bayesian inference. A novel Poisson approximate likelihood (PAL) filter was introduced by Whitehouse et al. (2023). PAL employs a Poisson approximation to conditional densities, offering a fast approximation to the likelihood function for a certain subset of partially observed Markov process models. A central piece of evidence for PAL is the comparison in Table 1 of Whitehouse et al. (2023), which claims a large improvement for PAL over a standard particle filter algorithm. This evidence, based on a model and data from a previous scientific study by Stocks et al. (2020), might suggest that researchers confronted with similar models should use PAL rather than particle filter methods. Taken at face value, this evidence also reduces the credibility of Stocks et al. (2020) by indicating a shortcoming with the numerical methods that they used. However, we show that the comparison of log-likelihood values made by Whitehouse et al. (2023) is flawed because their PAL calculations were carried out using a dataset scaled differently from the previous study. If PAL and the particle filter are applied to the same data, the advantage claimed for PAL disappears. On simulations where the model is correctly specified, the particle filter outperforms PAL.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Poisson Approximate Likelihood versus the block particle filter for a spatiotemporal measles model

    stat.ME 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The lookahead PAL filter has substantial positive Monte Carlo bias on the spatiotemporal measles model, so the log-likelihood advantages reported for PAL over a block particle filter are not reliable.

Pith tools