Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Advances in Approximate Bayesian Inference for Models in Epidemiology

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This review argues that four approximate Bayesian method families—ABC, BSL, INLA, and VI—form a practical toolbox for epidemiological inference, and that a decision map can route practitioners to the right method, with hybrid…

desk verdict A solid, useful review of four approximate Bayesian inference families for epidemiology; the decision map is a heuristic that would benefit from a worked example. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19698 v1 pith:BNBR2YKX submitted 2025-04-28 stat.ME stat.CO

Xiahui Li , Fergus Chadwick , Ben Swallow This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MEstat.CO MSC 62F1562P10
keywords approximateBayesianinferenceComputationsyntheticlikelihoodintegratednestedLaplaceapproximationvariationalinfectiousdiseasemodelingdecisionmapcalibration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This review argues that Bayesian inference for infectious disease models need not choose between statistical accuracy and computational feasibility: four approximate families—Approximate Bayesian Computation (ABC), Bayesian Synthetic Likelihood (BSL), Integrated Nested Laplace Approximation (INLA), and Variational Inference (VI)—form a toolbox that trades a controlled amount of precision for speed. The paper's central contribution is a decision map that routes a modeling problem to one of these methods based on a few diagnostic questions, together with a comparative synthesis of recent methodological advances in each family. The authors claim this gives epidemiologists, especially non-specialists, a practical way to choose an inference tool for real-time outbreak analysis. They conclude that the most promising future direction is hybrid exact-approximate inference: methods that marry the theoretical guarantees of MCMC with the scalability of approximations.

What carries the argument

The central object that carries the paper's argument is the decision map: a flowchart whose branches are four diagnostic questions—likelihood tractability, availability and Gaussianity of informative summary statistics, latent Gaussian model structure, and scalability priority—leading respectively to ABC, BSL, INLA, VI, or MCMC. Behind the map sit the method-specific mechanisms the paper synthesizes: ABC's rejection rule $d(s(y_{\mathrm{obs}}), s(y_{\mathrm{sim}})) < \varepsilon$; BSL's Gaussian surrogate $\mathcal{N}(s_{\mathrm{obs}}; \mu_N(\theta), \Sigma_N(\theta))$; INLA's nested Laplace approximations of posterior marginals using sparse precision matrices; and VI's optimization of the ELBO over a parametric family $q(\theta; \varphi)$. The paper also assembles recent refinements—machine-learning summary statistics for ABC, shrinkage and whitening for BSL covariance estimation, non-stationary and point-process extensions for INLA, and automatic-differentiation black-box VI—as evidence that each family is rapidly advancing.

What would settle it

Run a benchmark on a diverse set of epidemic models with a trustworthy reference posterior obtained by long-run MCMC, apply the paper's decision map to each model, and compare the map-chosen method's posterior error and runtime against a fixed default method such as always using ABC; if map-guided choices are not closer to the reference and not faster in practice, the central practical claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is organizational and prescriptive: the flourishing literature on approximate Bayesian inference in epidemiology can be sorted into four method families, each defined by a distinct assumption about the model and the data. ABC avoids likelihood evaluation by comparing simulated and observed summary statistics; BSL approximates the distribution of those statistics as multivariate normal and builds a synthetic likelihood; INLA performs fast deterministic inference by nested Laplace approximation in latent Gaussian models with sparse precision structures; and VI recasts posterior inference as optimization of an evidence lower bound. The paper claims that these families are complementary rather than competing, and that the decision map can guide practitioners to the appropriate tool by asking whether the likelihood is tractable, whether informative summary statistics are Gaussian, whether the model is a latent Gaussian model, and whether scalability is the priority. It also asserts that hybrid exact-approximate inference is the frontier that combines methodological rigor with outbreak-response practicality.

Load-bearing premise

The decision map's usefulness depends on practitioners answering its diagnostic questions correctly—tractable likelihood, Gaussian summary statistics, latent Gaussian structure, scalability priority—and the review offers no procedure or evidence for making those calls.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A modeler with an intractable likelihood who has informative, Gaussian-distributed summary statistics should reach for BSL rather than ABC; non-Gaussian summaries point to ABC.
  • A tractable model that is a latent Gaussian model is a candidate for INLA's fast deterministic approximation, often avoiding MCMC's cost.
  • A tractable non-latent-Gaussian model where speed and scale matter points to VI; where accuracy is paramount and time allows, MCMC remains the benchmark.
  • Without a map, the paper implies, practitioners often adopt methods because of software availability rather than problem fit, so the decision map is meant to correct that bias.
  • Hybrid exact-approximate methods are identified as the next frontier for combining MCMC-style theoretical guarantees with real-time scalability.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The decision map is only as reliable as its diagnostic questions; the paper does not supply a protocol or benchmark showing that modelers can answer them correctly, so a natural next step is a user study or simulation evaluation of map-guided choices.
  • Because the four families operate on general statistical machinery, the same map could plausibly apply outside epidemiology—for example, in ecology, economics, or systems biology—though the paper only claims epidemiological relevance.
  • Hybrid exact-approximate inference could take concrete forms the paper gestures at but does not develop, such as VI-initialized MCMC, MCMC-within-INLA for non-Gaussian latent structure, or ABC with an exact MCMC refinement for partly tractable models.
  • If BSL's Gaussianity assumption is the main constraint, semiparametric and copula-based extensions the paper cites suggest a testable path: summary statistics that fail the Gaussian check under ABC might still work under a relaxed BSL, blurring the map's ABC/BSL boundary.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This review surveys approximate Bayesian inference methods for epidemiological modeling, focusing on four families: Approximate Bayesian Computation (ABC), Bayesian Synthetic Likelihood (BSL), Integrated Nested Laplace Approximation (INLA), and Variational Inference (VI). It also discusses asymptotically exact methods (MCMC, HMC) as benchmarks, compares all five approaches in Table 1, and proposes a decision map (Figure 2) for method selection. The paper claims that this map can guide practitioners, and it identifies hybrid exact-approximate inference as the most promising research frontier. The manuscript contains no new simulations, derivations, or empirical analyses; its contribution is a synthesis of recent methodological advances and application-oriented guidance.

Significance. If the comparative synthesis and decision map are reliable, this review could be a useful entry point for epidemiologists choosing among approximate Bayesian methods. The paper's strengths are its broad and current citation base, its structured comparison of methods along dimensions such as likelihood requirements and posterior approximation type, and its balanced inclusion of limitations for INLA and VI. The decision map is a potentially valuable heuristic, but the paper does not validate that its diagnostic questions can be answered reliably or that following them improves inference quality; the central practical claim therefore remains unsupported. The review is unlikely to change expert practice without that validation, but it is a reasonable survey for non-specialists.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.5, Figure 2] The decision map is the paper's central practical contribution, yet it is presented without any validation. The manuscript offers no protocol, worked example, simulation, or benchmark demonstrating that the diagnostic questions (likelihood tractability, availability of informative and sufficient summary statistics, Gaussianity of summary statistics, latent Gaussian model structure, and scalability priority) can be answered reliably in practice, nor any evidence that following the map leads to better inference than a practitioner's prior experience. Since the map is the basis for the method-selection guidance in the Abstract and Conclusion, this missing support is load-bearing for the paper's main claim.
  2. [Section 3.5, Figure 2, first branch] The first split asks whether the likelihood is 'tractable,' but this is not an unambiguous property of an epidemiological model. The same mechanistic process can have a tractable likelihood under one observation model (e.g., aggregated incidence counts with Gaussian noise) and an intractable or simulation-only likelihood under another (e.g., individual-level event times with unobserved infection times). The review gives no operational definition of tractability or guidance for making this call; two reasonable practitioners could route the same epidemic model to opposite branches and therefore to opposite method recommendations. The map needs at least a definition of tractability and a discussion of how observation-model choices affect the branch assignment.
  3. [Section 3.5, BSL/ABC branch] The condition that 'informative and sufficient summary statistics' are available is problematic because sufficient summary statistics rarely exist in complex epidemic models, and no guidance is given for assessing sufficiency. Similarly, the branch asking whether summary statistics 'follow a Gaussian distribution' is not accompanied by a diagnostic procedure, and the relevant comparison should be whether a Gaussian approximation is adequate for the inference goal rather than whether the statistics are exactly normal. Without such guidance, the map's likelihood-free branch is hard to apply and may mislead non-specialist users.
  4. [Section 3.4.1] The statement that ELBO optimization 'guarantees convergence' is too strong. In general, the ELBO is non-convex, and VI only guarantees convergence to a local optimum or stationary point under additional regularity conditions; in practice it may converge to different modes from different initializations. This overclaim matters because the paper presents VI as a reliable alternative for epidemic applications. The sentence should be qualified to describe convergence in the sense of local optimization, with references to known limitations such as multimodality.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.3.2] The claim that INLA is 'often outperforming MCMC in terms of computational efficiency' should be qualified: speed comparisons are fine, but 'outperforming' without specifying the accuracy criterion invites the misreading that INLA is generally more accurate than MCMC, which is not the paper's intended point.
  2. [Section 3.4.1, equation for ELBO] The notation in the KL-divergence definition, specifically 'φ∈≨', appears to be a typographical error and should be cleaned up.
  3. [Table 1] The text describes Table 1 as a comparison of five methods, but the visible manuscript content appears to contain only the caption, not the actual table body. If the table is missing from the submitted version, it should be included; if it is present in the compiled PDF, the rendering needs to be checked.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors that should be corrected, including 'parrallelizable' in Section 3.4.1, 'bahavior' in Section 3.3.1, 'salability' in Section 3.3.4, and 'efficienctly' in Appendix A.
  5. [Section 3.4.2] The phrase 'often requiring topologists to guide the inference process' is likely meant to say that practitioners with expertise in tree topology are needed; the wording should be clarified to avoid confusion with the mathematical field of topology.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the review's comparative content and decision map are not derived from fitted outputs, self-citations, or definitional equivalences.

full rationale

This paper is a narrative review, not a derivation or a prediction paper. Its central claims—that ABC, BSL, INLA, and VI form four prominent families of approximate Bayesian inference and that Figure 2 can guide method selection—are supported by literature summaries and by the internal logic of each method's definition, not by any fitted parameter or novel quantitative result. The only self-citations (Marion et al., 2022 and Swallow et al., 2022, both involving co-author Swallow) appear in the introduction as background reference points for general challenges in epidemic modeling, such as uncertain model structure and noisy data; they are not used to justify the paper's comparative framework or its recommendations. No equation in the paper is shown to reduce to its own input by construction, and no quantity is fitted to one subset of data and then presented as a prediction of a closely related quantity. The decision map in Figure 2 is a heuristic classification device based on standard characterizations of each method (e.g., ABC/BSL for intractable likelihoods, INLA for latent Gaussian models, VI for scalable optimization), and these characterizations are consistent with the cited methodological literature. The map's branch questions are admittedly not validated empirically, which is a limitation and a correctness risk, but an unvalidated heuristic is not the same as a circular argument. The review also explicitly acknowledges each method's limitations, further indicating that its comparative claims are not forced by a self-citation chain or by definitional fiat. Therefore, no circularity of any of the enumerated kinds is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The review fits no data and uses no tuned constants, so there are no free parameters. Its claims rest on standard Bayesian mathematics, on a scope choice that four families define the field, and on an untested assumption that practitioners can apply the decision map's diagnostics correctly. No new entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Bayes' rule and the posterior proportionality argument are taken as the inference foundation (Section 2.1).
    Used throughout the review as the shared basis for all exact and approximate methods; it is standard probability theory, not a paper-specific assumption.
  • domain assumption The four families ABC, BSL, INLA, and VI are the prominent approximate Bayesian approaches for epidemiological models, with MCMC as the exact benchmark.
    This scope choice defines the review's coverage and the Figure 2 decision map; it excludes other active approximate inference families such as amortized neural posterior estimation, so the completeness of the guidance depends on this assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper Practitioners can reliably answer the diagnostic questions in Figure 2 (likelihood tractability, sufficiency and Gaussianity of summary statistics, LGM structure, scalability priority) and use the resulting recommendation.
    The decision map is presented as practical guidance but is not validated with simulations, real-data examples, or sensitivity analyses; this is the weakest load-bearing premise for the paper's contribution.
  • domain assumption The performance claims cited for each method (e.g., BSL's tolerance of high-dimensional summary statistics, INLA's accuracy and speed, VI's scalability) are accurate as reported in the cited sources.
    The review relies on peer-reviewed results rather than reproducing them; no independent verification is provided for claims such as BSL outperforming ABC on 145 summary statistics or INLA often outperforming MCMC.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Advances in Approximate Bayesian Inference for Models in Epidemiology." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BNBR2YKX

@misc{pith2026250419698,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Advances in Approximate Bayesian Inference for Models in Epidemiology},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BNBR2YKX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19698}
}
read the original abstract

Bayesian inference methods are useful in infectious diseases modeling due to their capability to propagate uncertainty, manage sparse data, incorporate latent structures, and address high-dimensional parameter spaces. However, parameter inference through assimilation of observational data in these models remains challenging. While asymptotically exact Bayesian methods offer theoretical guarantees for accurate inference, they can be computationally demanding and impractical for real-time outbreak analysis. This review synthesizes recent advances in approximate Bayesian inference methods that aim to balance inferential accuracy with scalability. We focus on four prominent families: Approximate Bayesian Computation, Bayesian Synthetic Likelihood, Integrated Nested Laplace Approximation, and Variational Inference. For each method, we evaluate its relevance to epidemiological applications, emphasizing innovations that improve both computational efficiency and inference accuracy. We also offer practical guidance on method selection across a range of modeling scenarios. Finally, we identify hybrid exact approximate inference as a promising frontier that combines methodological rigor with the scalability needed for the response to outbreaks. This review provides epidemiologists with a conceptual framework to navigate the trade-off between statistical accuracy and computational feasibility in contemporary disease modeling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.19698 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Workflow comparison between Approximate Bayesian Computation (ABC) and Bayesian Synthetic Likelihood (BSL). Both methods begin with prior sampling and simulation from a mathematical model to generate synthetic datasets (y ∗ 1 , y∗ 2 , ..., y∗ N ). In ABC (left), observed and simulated datasets are transformed into summary statistics, and inference is based on whether the distance between them falls below a tolerance… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Decision tree for selecting Bayesian inference methods in epidemio￾logical modeling.The flowchart guides the choice between and within likelihood-based and likelihood-free approaches based on key model characteristics. their key features to better understand their respective strengths, limitations, and prac￾tical uptake. To further support real-world application, we developed a decision map designed to guide the sel… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Workflow of the HMC algorithm. The HMC procedure consists of three main steps: (1) Initialization, where the posterior distribution and its gradient are de￾rived, and a random momentum variable is simulated; (2) Leapfrog Integration, where the Hamiltonian dynamics are numerically solved using the leapfrog algorithm to propose a new state; and (3) Metropolis Acceptance, where the proposal state is accepted or re￾ject… view at source ↗

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. A novel two-stage parameter estimation framework integrating Approximate Bayesian Computation and Machine Learning: The ABC-RF-rejection algorithm

    stat.ME 2025-07 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    A two-stage ABC-rejection-plus-random-forest algorithm is proposed for faster parameter inference, but its efficiency statistics do not match the stated definition and its posterior validity is unsupported.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

138 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    J., Kochurov, M., Kumar, R., Lao, J., Luhmann, C

    Abril-Pla, O., Andreani, V., Carroll, C., Dong, L., Fonnesbeck, C. J., Kochurov, M., Kumar, R., Lao, J., Luhmann, C. C., Martin, O. A., et al. (2023). Pymc: a modern, and comprehensive probabilistic programming framework in python. PeerJ Computer Science , 9:e1516

    2023

  2. [2]

    Adin, A., Goicoa, T., and Ugarte, M. D. (2019). Online relative risks/rates estimation in spatial and spatio-temporal disease mapping. Computer methods and programs in biomedicine , 172:103--116

    2019

  3. [3]

    A., and Futschik, A

    Aeschbacher, S., Beaumont, M. A., and Futschik, A. (2012). A novel approach for choosing summary statistics in approximate bayesian computation. Genetics , 192(3):1027--1047

    2012

  4. [4]

    kesson, M., Singh, P., Wrede, F., and Hellander, A. (2021). Convolutional neural networks as summary statistics for approximate bayesian computation. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics , 19(6):3353--3365

    2021

  5. [5]

    A., Flegg, J

    Alahmadi, A. A., Flegg, J. A., Cochrane, D. G., Drovandi, C. C., and Keith, J. M. (2020). A comparison of approximate versus exact techniques for bayesian parameter inference in nonlinear ordinary differential equation models. Royal Society open science , 7(3):191315

    2020

  6. [6]

    J., and Drovandi, C

    An, Z., Nott, D. J., and Drovandi, C. (2020). Robust bayesian synthetic likelihood via a semi-parametric approach. Statistics and Computing , 30(3):543--557

    2020

  7. [7]

    F., Nott, D

    An, Z., South, L. F., Nott, D. J., and Drovandi, C. C. (2019). Accelerating bayesian synthetic likelihood with the graphical lasso. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics , 28(2):471--475

    2019

  8. [8]

    and Duggan, J

    Andrade, J. and Duggan, J. (2020). An evaluation of hamiltonian monte carlo performance to calibrate age-structured compartmental seir models to incidence data. Epidemics , 33:100415

    2020

Show all 138 references
  1. [9]

    E., Lindgren, F., Borchers, D

    Bachl, F. E., Lindgren, F., Borchers, D. L., and Illian, J. B. (2019). inlabru: an r package for bayesian spatial modelling from ecological survey data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution , 10(6):760--766

    2019

  2. [10]

    M., Monteagudo D \' az, S., Baetens, J

    Baldoqu \' n Rodr \' guez, W., Mirabal, M., Van der Stuyft, P., G \'o mez Padr \'o n, T., Fonseca, V., Castillo, R. M., Monteagudo D \' az, S., Baetens, J. M., De Baets, B., Toledo Roman \' , M. E., et al. (2023). The potential of surveillance data for dengue risk mapping: An ...

    2023

  3. [11]

    Barndorff-Nielsen, O. E. and Cox, D. R. (1989). Asymptotic techniques for use in statistics . Chapman & Hall

    1989

  4. [12]

    S., Economou, T., Gomes, M

    Bastos, L. S., Economou, T., Gomes, M. F., Villela, D. A., Coelho, F. C., Cruz, O. G., Stoner, O., Bailey, T., and Code c o, C. T. (2019). A modelling approach for correcting reporting delays in disease surveillance data. Statistics in medicine , 38(22):4363--4377

    2019

  5. [13]

    A., Cornuet, J.-M., Marin, J.-M., and Robert, C

    Beaumont, M. A., Cornuet, J.-M., Marin, J.-M., and Robert, C. P. (2009). Adaptive approximate bayesian computation. Biometrika , 96(4):983--990

    2009

  6. [14]

    A., Zhang, W., and Balding, D

    Beaumont, M. A., Zhang, W., and Balding, D. J. (2002). Approximate bayesian computation in population genetics. Genetics , 162(4):2025--2035

    2002

  7. [15]

    E., Gerber, M., and Robert, C

    Bernton, E., Jacob, P. E., Gerber, M., and Robert, C. P. (2019). Approximate bayesian computation with the wasserstein distance. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , 81(2):235--269

    2019

  8. [16]

    Beskos, A., Pillai, N., Roberts, G., Sanz-Serna, J.-M., and Stuart, A. (2013). Optimal tuning of the hybrid monte carlo algorithm

    2013

  9. [17]

    Betancourt, M. (2016). Identifying the optimal integration time in hamiltonian monte carlo. arXiv preprint arXiv:1601.00225

    2016 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Betancourt, M. (2017). A conceptual introduction to hamiltonian monte carlo. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.02434

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Betancourt, M., Byrne, S., and Girolami, M. (2014). Optimizing the integrator step size for hamiltonian monte carlo. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.6669

    2014 arXiv

  12. [20]

    M., Kucukelbir, A., and McAuliffe, J

    Blei, D. M., Kucukelbir, A., and McAuliffe, J. D. (2017). Variational inference: A review for statisticians. Journal of the American statistical Association , 112(518):859--877

    2017

  13. [21]

    Blum, M. G. (2010). Approximate bayesian computation: a nonparametric perspective. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 105(491):1178--1187

    2010

  14. [22]

    Box, G. E. and Draper, N. R. (1987). Empirical model-building and response surfaces. John Wiley & Sons

    1987

  15. [23]

    Brauer, F. (2008). Compartmental models in epidemiology. Mathematical epidemiology , pages 19--79

    2008

  16. [24]

    Brooks, S., Gelman, A., Jones, G., and Meng, X.-L. (2011). Handbook of markov chain monte carlo . CRC press

    2011

  17. [25]

    B., and Worrall, E

    Canelas, T., Thomsen, E., McDermott, D., Sternberg, E., Thomas, M. B., and Worrall, E. (2021). Spatial targeting of screening+ eave tubes (set), a house-based malaria control intervention, in c \^o te d’ivoire: A geostatistical modelling study. PLOS Global Public Health , 1(11...

    2021

  18. [26]

    M., Restrepo, B

    Carabali, M., Schmidt, A. M., Restrepo, B. N., and Kaufman, J. S. (2022). A joint spatial marked point process model for dengue and severe dengue in medellin, colombia. Spatial and Spatio-temporal Epidemiology , 41:100495

    2022

  19. [27]

    D., Lee, D., Goodrich, B., Betancourt, M., Brubaker, M

    Carpenter, B., Gelman, A., Hoffman, M. D., Lee, D., Goodrich, B., Betancourt, M., Brubaker, M. A., Guo, J., Li, P., and Riddell, A. (2017). Stan: A probabilistic programming language. Journal of statistical software , 76

    2017

  20. [28]

    Chang, O., Yao, Y., Williams-King, D., and Lipson, H. (2019). Ensemble model patching: A parameter-efficient variational bayesian neural network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.09453

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Chatzilena, A., van Leeuwen, E., Ratmann, O., Baguelin, M., and Demiris, N. (2019). Contemporary statistical inference for infectious disease models using stan. Epidemics , 29:100367

    2019

  22. [30]

    Chaudhuri, S., Gim \'e nez-Adsuar, G., Saez, M., and Barcel \'o , M. A. (2022). Pandemoncat: monitoring the covid-19 pandemic in catalonia, spain. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 19(8):4783

    2022

  23. [31]

    Chen, P., Wu, K., and Ghattas, O. (2021). Bayesian inference of heterogeneous epidemic models: Application to covid-19 spread accounting for long-term care facilities. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , 385:114020

    2021

  24. [32]

    D., Mayfield, H

    Cortes-Ramirez, J., Gatton, M., Wilches-Vega, J. D., Mayfield, H. J., Wang, N., Paris-Pineda, O. M., and Sly, P. D. (2023). Mapping the risk of respiratory infections using suburban district areas in a large city in colombia. BMC Public Health , 23(1):1400

    2023

  25. [33]

    A., Lambert, S., Hayes, S., Thompson, R

    Dankwa, E. A., Lambert, S., Hayes, S., Thompson, R. N., and Donnelly, C. A. (2022). Stochastic modelling of african swine fever in wild boar and domestic pigs: Epidemic forecasting and comparison of disease management strategies. Epidemics , 40:100622

    2022

  26. [34]

    Debusho, L. K. and Bedaso, N. G. (2023). Bayesian spatial modelling of hiv prevalence in jimma zone, ethiopia. Diseases , 11(1):46

    2023

  27. [35]

    and Frazier, D

    Drovandi, C. and Frazier, D. T. (2022). A comparison of likelihood-free methods with and without summary statistics. Statistics and Computing , 32(3):42

    2022

  28. [36]

    Drovandi, C. C. and Pettitt, A. N. (2011). Likelihood-free bayesian estimation of multivariate quantile distributions. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis , 55(9):2541--2556

    2011

  29. [37]

    C., Pettitt, A

    Drovandi, C. C., Pettitt, A. N., and Faddy, M. J. (2011). Approximate bayesian computation using indirect inference. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C: Applied Statistics , 60(3):317--337

    2011

  30. [38]

    C., Pettitt, A

    Drovandi, C. C., Pettitt, A. N., and Lee, A. (2015). Bayesian indirect inference using a parametric auxiliary model

    2015

  31. [39]

    D., Pendleton, B

    Duane, S., Kennedy, A. D., Pendleton, B. J., and Roweth, D. (1987). Hybrid monte carlo. Physics letters B , 195(2):216--222

    1987

  32. [40]

    Everitt, R. G. (2017). Bootstrapped synthetic likelihood. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05825

    2017 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Fan, K., Li, C., and Heller, K. (2016). A unifying variational inference framework for hierarchical graph-coupled hmm with an application to influenza infection. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 30

    2016

  34. [42]

    Fasiolo, M., Pya, N., and Wood, S. (2014). Statistical inference for highly non-linear dynamical models in ecology and epidemiology. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4564

    2014 arXiv

  35. [43]

    N., Hartig, F., and Bravington, M

    Fasiolo, M., Wood, S. N., Hartig, F., and Bravington, M. V. (2018). An extended empirical saddlepoint approximation for intractable likelihoods

    2018

  36. [44]

    and Prangle, D

    Fearnhead, P. and Prangle, D. (2012). Constructing summary statistics for approximate bayesian computation: semi-automatic approximate bayesian computation. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , 74(3):419--474

    2012

  37. [45]

    A., Hassler, G

    Fisher, A. A., Hassler, G. W., Ji, X., Baele, G., Suchard, M. A., and Lemey, P. (2022). Scalable bayesian phylogenetics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B , 377(1861):20210242

    2022

  38. [46]

    J., Galloway, J

    Fourment, M., Swanepoel, C. J., Galloway, J. G., Ji, X., Gangavarapu, K., Suchard, M. A., and Matsen Iv, F. A. (2023). Automatic differentiation is no panacea for phylogenetic gradient computation. Genome biology and evolution , 15(6):evad099

    2023

  39. [47]

    Frazier, D. T. and Drovandi, C. (2021). Robust approximate bayesian inference with synthetic likelihood. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics , 30(4):958--976

    2021

  40. [48]

    T., Nott, D

    Frazier, D. T., Nott, D. J., Drovandi, C., and Kohn, R. (2023). Bayesian inference using synthetic likelihood: asymptotics and adjustments. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 118(544):2821--2832

    2023

  41. [49]

    B., Stern, H

    Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., and Rubin, D. B. (1995). Bayesian data analysis . Chapman and Hall/CRC

    1995

  42. [50]

    and Pigorsch, C

    Gleim, A. and Pigorsch, C. (2013). Approximate bayesian computation with indirect summary statistics. Draft paper: http://ect-pigorsch. mee. uni-bonn. de/data/research/papers

    2013

  43. [51]

    Gozzi, N., Bajardi, P., and Perra, N. (2021a). The importance of non-pharmaceutical interventions during the covid-19 vaccine rollout. PLoS computational biology , 17(9):e1009346

    2021

  44. [52]

    E., Longini Jr, I

    Gozzi, N., Chinazzi, M., Dean, N. E., Longini Jr, I. M., Halloran, M. E., Perra, N., and Vespignani, A. (2023). Estimating the impact of covid-19 vaccine inequities: a modeling study. Nature Communications , 14(1):3272

    2023

  45. [53]

    Gozzi, N., Tizzoni, M., Chinazzi, M., Ferres, L., Vespignani, A., and Perra, N. (2021b). Estimating the effect of social inequalities on the mitigation of covid-19 across communities in santiago de chile. Nature communications , 12(1):2429

    2021

  46. [54]

    C., and Riou, J

    Grinsztajn, L., Semenova, E., Margossian, C. C., and Riou, J. (2021). Bayesian workflow for disease transmission modeling in stan. Statistics in medicine , 40(27):6209--6234

    2021

  47. [55]

    Gunapati, G., Jain, A., Srijith, P., and Desai, S. (2022). Variational inference as an alternative to mcmc for parameter estimation and model selection. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia , 39:e001

    2022

  48. [56]

    Harrison, J. U. and Baker, R. E. (2020). An automatic adaptive method to combine summary statistics in approximate bayesian computation. PloS one , 15(8):e0236954

    2020

  49. [57]

    W., Magee, A

    Hassler, G. W., Magee, A. F., Zhang, Z., Baele, G., Lemey, P., Ji, X., Fourment, M., and Suchard, M. A. (2023). Data integration in bayesian phylogenetics. Annual review of statistics and its application , 10(1):353--377

    2023

  50. [58]

    Hastings, W. K. (1970). Monte carlo sampling methods using markov chains and their applications

    1970

  51. [59]

    and Rue, H

    Held, L. and Rue, H. (2010). Conditional and intrinsic autoregressions. Handbook of spatial statistics , pages 201--216

    2010

  52. [60]

    D., Blei, D

    Hoffman, M. D., Blei, D. M., Wang, C., and Paisley, J. (2013). Stochastic variational inference. the Journal of machine Learning research , 14(1):1303--1347

    2013

  53. [61]

    D., Gelman, A., et al

    Hoffman, M. D., Gelman, A., et al. (2014). The no-u-turn sampler: adaptively setting path lengths in hamiltonian monte carlo. J. Mach. Learn. Res. , 15(1):1593--1623

    2014

  54. [62]

    M., Tasnim, S., Sultana, A., Faizah, F., Mazumder, H., Zou, L., McKyer, E

    Hossain, M. M., Tasnim, S., Sultana, A., Faizah, F., Mazumder, H., Zou, L., McKyer, E. L. J., Ahmed, H. U., and Ma, P. (2020). Epidemiology of mental health problems in covid-19: a review. F1000Research , 9

    2020

  55. [63]

    A., Nguyen, V

    Howes, A., Risher, K. A., Nguyen, V. K., Stevens, O., Jia, K. M., Wolock, T. M., Esra, R. T., Zembe, L., Wanyeki, I., Mahy, M., et al. (2023). Spatio-temporal estimates of hiv risk group proportions for adolescent girls and young women across 13 priority countries in sub-sahar...

    2023

  56. [64]

    Jaya, I. G. N. M., Chadidjah, A., Kristiani, F., Darmawan, G., Princidy, J. C., et al. (2023). Does mobility restriction significantly control infectious disease transmission? accounting for non-stationarity in the impact of covid-19 based on bayesian spatially varying coeffic...

    2023

  57. [65]

    Jiang, B., Wu, T.-y., Zheng, C., and Wong, W. H. (2017). Learning summary statistic for approximate bayesian computation via deep neural network. Statistica Sinica , pages 1595--1618

    2017

  58. [66]

    L., Lim, J

    Jin, S., Dickens, B. L., Lim, J. T., and Cook, A. R. (2023). Epimix: A novel method to estimate effective reproduction number. Infectious Disease Modelling , 8(3):704--716

    2023

  59. [67]

    I., Ghahramani, Z., Jaakkola, T

    Jordan, M. I., Ghahramani, Z., Jaakkola, T. S., and Saul, L. K. (1999). An introduction to variational methods for graphical models. Machine learning , 37:183--233

    1999

  60. [68]

    and Marjoram, P

    Joyce, P. and Marjoram, P. (2008). Approximately sufficient statistics and bayesian computation. Statistical applications in genetics and molecular biology , 7(1)

    2008

  61. [69]

    D., Okeagu, C

    Kaye, A. D., Okeagu, C. N., Pham, A. D., Silva, R. A., Hurley, J. J., Arron, B. L., Sarfraz, N., Lee, H. N., Ghali, G. E., Gamble, J. W., et al. (2021). Economic impact of covid-19 pandemic on healthcare facilities and systems: International perspectives. Best Practice & Resea...

    2021

  62. [70]

    and Terhorst, J

    Ki, C. and Terhorst, J. (2022). Variational phylodynamic inference using pandemic-scale data. Molecular Biology and Evolution , 39(8):msac154

    2022

  63. [71]

    Knutson, V., Aleshin-Guendel, S., Karlinsky, A., Msemburi, W., and Wakefield, J. (2023). Estimating global and country-specific excess mortality during the covid-19 pandemic. The Annals of Applied Statistics , 17(2):1353--1374

    2023

  64. [72]

    Konstantinoudis, G., Schuhmacher, D., Rue, H., and Spycher, B. D. (2020). Discrete versus continuous domain models for disease mapping. Spatial and spatio-temporal epidemiology , 32:100319

    2020

  65. [73]

    E., Ashby, B., Fearon, E., Overton, C

    Kretzschmar, M. E., Ashby, B., Fearon, E., Overton, C. E., Panovska-Griffiths, J., Pellis, L., Quaife, M., Rozhnova, G., Scarabel, F., Stage, H. B., et al. (2022). Challenges for modelling interventions for future pandemics. Epidemics , 38:100546

    2022

  66. [74]

    Kucukelbir, A., Ranganath, R., Gelman, A., and Blei, D. (2015). Automatic variational inference in stan. Advances in neural information processing systems , 28

    2015

  67. [75]

    Kucukelbir, A., Tran, D., Ranganath, R., Gelman, A., and Blei, D. M. (2017). Automatic differentiation variational inference. Journal of machine learning research , 18(14):1--45

    2017

  68. [76]

    Kypraios, T., Neal, P., and Prangle, D. (2017). A tutorial introduction to bayesian inference for stochastic epidemic models using approximate bayesian computation. Mathematical biosciences , 287:42--53

    2017

  69. [77]

    A., Economou, T., and Lowe, R

    Lee, S. A., Economou, T., and Lowe, R. (2022). A bayesian modelling framework to quantify multiple sources of spatial variation for disease mapping. Journal of the Royal Society Interface , 19(194):20220440

    2022

  70. [78]

    H., Rue, H., and Seaton, A

    Lindgren, F., Bachl, F., Illian, J., Suen, M. H., Rue, H., and Seaton, A. E. (2024). inlabru: software for fitting latent gaussian models with non-linear predictors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.00791

    2024 arXiv

  71. [79]

    S., Nott, D

    Loaiza-Maya, R., Smith, M. S., Nott, D. J., and Danaher, P. J. (2022). Fast and accurate variational inference for models with many latent variables. Journal of Econometrics , 230(2):339--362

    2022

  72. [80]

    and Beaumont, M

    Lopes, J. and Beaumont, M. A. (2010). Abc: a useful bayesian tool for the analysis of population data. Infection, Genetics and Evolution , 10(6):825--832

    2010

  73. [81]

    S., Scarabel, F., Swallow, B., Trapman, P., et al

    Marion, G., Hadley, L., Isham, V., Mollison, D., Panovska-Griffiths, J., Pellis, L., Tomba, G. S., Scarabel, F., Swallow, B., Trapman, P., et al. (2022). Modelling: understanding pandemics and how to control them. Epidemics , 39:100588

    2022

  74. [82]

    Marjoram, P., Molitor, J., Plagnol, V., and Tavar \'e , S. (2003). Markov chain monte carlo without likelihoods. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 100(26):15324--15328

    2003

  75. [83]

    R., and Fern \'a ndez-Somoano, A

    Mart \' nez-P \'e rez, I., Gonz \'a lez-Iglesias, V., Su \'a rez, V. R., and Fern \'a ndez-Somoano, A. (2023). Spatial distribution of unscheduled hospital admissions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the central area of asturias, spain. BMC Pulmonary Medicine , 23(1):101

    2023

  76. [84]

    G., Simpson, D., Lindgren, F., and Rue, H

    Martins, T. G., Simpson, D., Lindgren, F., and Rue, H. (2013). Bayesian computing with inla: new features. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis , 67:68--83

    2013

  77. [85]

    and Reich, N

    McAndrew, T. and Reich, N. G. (2021). Adaptively stacking ensembles for influenza forecasting. Statistics in medicine , 40(30):6931--6952

    2021

  78. [86]

    J., Neal, P., Spencer, S

    McKinley, T. J., Neal, P., Spencer, S. E., Conlan, A. J., and Tiley, L. (2020). Efficient bayesian model choice for partially observed processes: with application to an experimental transmission study of an infectious disease

    2020

  79. [87]

    and Welling, M

    Meeds, E. and Welling, M. (2014). Gps-abc: Gaussian process surrogate approximate bayesian computation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1401.2838

    2014 arXiv

  80. [88]

    W., Rosenbluth, M

    Metropolis, N., Rosenbluth, A. W., Rosenbluth, M. N., Teller, A. H., and Teller, E. (1953). Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines. The journal of chemical physics , 21(6):1087--1092

    1953

  81. [89]

    L., Burt, M

    Miller, D. L., Burt, M. L., Rexstad, E. A., and Thomas, L. (2013). Spatial models for distance sampling data: recent developments and future directions. Methods in Ecology and Evolution , 4(11):1001--1010

    2013

  82. [90]

    and Retkute, R

    Minter, A. and Retkute, R. (2019). Approximate bayesian computation for infectious disease modelling. Epidemics , 29:100368

    2019

  83. [91]

    and Waagepetersen, R

    M ller, J. and Waagepetersen, R. P. (2007). Modern statistics for spatial point processes. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics , 34(4):643--684

    2007

  84. [92]

    C., Thorson, J

    Monnahan, C. C., Thorson, J. T., and Branch, T. A. (2017). Faster estimation of bayesian models in ecology using hamiltonian monte carlo. Methods in Ecology and Evolution , 8(3):339--348

    2017

  85. [93]

    K., Zhang, L., Naesseth, C

    Moretti, A. K., Zhang, L., Naesseth, C. A., Venner, H., Blei, D., and Pe’er, I. (2021). Variational combinatorial sequential monte carlo methods for bayesian phylogenetic inference. In Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence , pages 971--981. PMLR

    2021

  86. [94]

    R., and Jori, F

    Mu \ n oz, F., Pleydell, D. R., and Jori, F. (2022). A combination of probabilistic and mechanistic approaches for predicting the spread of african swine fever on merry island. Epidemics , 40:100596

    2022

  87. [95]

    Neal, R. M. (1993). Probabilistic inference using markov chain monte carlo methods

    1993

  88. [96]

    Neal, R. M. (2012). Mcmc using hamiltonian dynamics. arXiv preprint arXiv:1206.1901

    2012 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Nunes, M. A. and Balding, D. J. (2010). On optimal selection of summary statistics for approximate bayesian computation. Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology , 9(1):Article 34

    2010

  90. [98]

    M.-H., Nott, D

    Ong, V. M.-H., Nott, D. J., Tran, M.-N., Sisson, S. A., and Drovandi, C. C. (2018). Likelihood-free inference in high dimensions with synthetic likelihood. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis , 128:271--291

    2018

  91. [99]

    Orozco-Acosta, E., Adin, A., and Ugarte, M. D. (2023). Big problems in spatio-temporal disease mapping: methods and software. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine , 231:107403

    2023

  92. [100]

    L., Santos, H

    Penetra, S. L., Santos, H. F., Resende, P. C., Bastos, L. S., da Silva, M. F., Pina-Costa, A., Lopes, R. S., Saboia-Vahia, L., de Oliveira, A. C. A., Pereira, E. C., et al. (2023). Sars-cov-2 reinfection cases in a household-based prospective cohort in rio de janeiro. The Jour...

    2023

  93. [101]

    Prangle, D. (2018). Summary statistics. In Handbook of approximate Bayesian computation , pages 125--152. Chapman and Hall/CRC

    2018

  94. [102]

    F., Drovandi, C

    Price, L. F., Drovandi, C. C., Lee, A., and Nott, D. J. (2018). Bayesian synthetic likelihood. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics , 27(1):1--11

    2018

  95. [103]

    W., Sisson, S

    Priddle, J. W., Sisson, S. A., Frazier, D. T., Turner, I., and Drovandi, C. (2022). Efficient bayesian synthetic likelihood with whitening transformations. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics , 31(1):50--63

    2022

  96. [104]

    P., and Estoup, A

    Raynal, L., Marin, J.-M., Pudlo, P., Ribatet, M., Robert, C. P., and Estoup, A. (2019). Abc random forests for bayesian parameter inference. Bioinformatics , 35(10):1720--1728

    2019

  97. [105]

    Rubin, D. B. (1984). Bayesianly justifiable and relevant frequency calculations for the applied statistician. The Annals of Statistics , pages 1151--1172

    1984

  98. [106]

    and Held, L

    Rue, H. and Held, L. (2005). Gaussian Markov random fields: theory and applications . Chapman and Hall/CRC

    2005

  99. [107]

    Rue, H., Martino, S., and Chopin, N. (2009). Approximate bayesian inference for latent gaussian models by using integrated nested laplace approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , 71(2):319--392

    2009

  100. [108]

    H., Illian, J

    Rue, H., Riebler, A., S rbye, S. H., Illian, J. B., Simpson, D. P., and Lindgren, F. K. (2017). Bayesian computing with inla: a review. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application , 4(1):395--421

    2017

  101. [109]

    S., and Prangle, D

    Ryder, T., Golightly, A., McGough, A. S., and Prangle, D. (2018). Black-box variational inference for stochastic differential equations. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 4423--4432. PMLR

    2018

  102. [110]

    Saez, M., Tobias, A., Varga, D., and Barcel \'o , M. A. (2020). Effectiveness of the measures to flatten the epidemic curve of covid-19. the case of spain. Science of the Total Environment , 727:138761

    2020

  103. [111]

    Salimans, T., Kingma, D., and Welling, M. (2015). Markov chain monte carlo and variational inference: Bridging the gap. In International conference on machine learning , pages 1218--1226. PMLR

    2015

  104. [112]

    Senanayake, R., O'callaghan, S., and Ramos, F. (2016). Predicting spatio-temporal propagation of seasonal influenza using variational gaussian process regression. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , volume 30

    2016

  105. [113]

    A., Fan, Y., and Beaumont, M

    Sisson, S. A., Fan, Y., and Beaumont, M. A. (2018). Overview of abc. In Handbook of approximate Bayesian computation , pages 3--54. Chapman and Hall/CRC

    2018

  106. [114]

    A., Fan, Y., and Tanaka, M

    Sisson, S. A., Fan, Y., and Tanaka, M. M. (2007). Sequential monte carlo without likelihoods. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 104(6):1760--1765

    2007

  107. [115]

    Smedemark-Margulies, N., Walters, R., Zimmermann, H., Laird, L., van der Loo, C., Kaushik, N., Caceres, R., and van de Meent, J.-W. (2022). Probabilistic program inference in network-based epidemiological simulations. PLOS Computational Biology , 18(11):e1010591

    2022

  108. [116]

    S trumbelj, E., Bouchard-C \^o t \'e , A., Corander, J., Gelman, A., Rue, H., Murray, L., Pesonen, H., Plummer, M., and Vehtari, A. (2024). Past, present and future of software for bayesian inference. Statistical Science , 39(1):46--61

    2024

  109. [117]

    E., Dawid, P., De Angelis, D., Goldstein, M., Hemming, V., et al

    Swallow, B., Birrell, P., Blake, J., Burgman, M., Challenor, P., Coffeng, L. E., Dawid, P., De Angelis, D., Goldstein, M., Hemming, V., et al. (2022). Challenges in estimation, uncertainty quantification and elicitation for pandemic modelling. Epidemics , 38:100547

    2022

  110. [118]

    Syga, S., David-Rus, D., Sch \"a lte, Y., Hatzikirou, H., and Deutsch, A. (2021). Inferring the effect of interventions on covid-19 transmission networks. Scientific reports , 11(1):21913

    2021

  111. [119]

    Tahir, H., Shahbaz Khan, M., Ahmed, F., M Albarrak, A., Noman Qasem, S., and Ahmad, J. (2023). Prediction of the sars-cov-2 derived t-cell epitopes’ response against covid variants. Computers, Materials & Continua , 75(2)

    2023

  112. [120]

    Talts, S., Betancourt, M., Simpson, D., Vehtari, A., and Gelman, A. (2018). Validating bayesian inference algorithms with simulation-based calibration. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.06788

    2018 arXiv

  113. [121]

    Tan, L. S. and Nott, D. J. (2018). Gaussian variational approximation with sparse precision matrices. Statistics and Computing , 28:259--275

    2018

  114. [122]

    J., Griffiths, R

    Tavar \'e , S., Balding, D. J., Griffiths, R. C., and Donnelly, P. (1997). Inferring coalescence times from dna sequence data. Genetics , 145(2):505--518

    1997

  115. [123]

    Thomas, O., Dutta, R., Corander, J., Kaski, S., and Gutmann, M. U. (2022). Likelihood-free inference by ratio estimation. Bayesian Analysis , 17(1):1--31

    2022

  116. [124]

    B., Bliznyuk, N., and Valle, D

    Toh, K. B., Bliznyuk, N., and Valle, D. (2021). Improving national level spatial mapping of malaria through alternative spatial and spatio-temporal models. Spatial and Spatio-temporal Epidemiology , 36:100394

    2021

  117. [125]

    Tong, Y. L. (2012). The multivariate normal distribution . Springer Science & Business Media

    2012

  118. [126]

    Toni, T., Welch, D., Strelkowa, N., Ipsen, A., and Stumpf, M. P. (2009). Approximate bayesian computation scheme for parameter inference and model selection in dynamical systems. Journal of the Royal Society Interface , 6(31):187--202

    2009

  119. [127]

    Van Niekerk, J., Bakka, H., Rue, H., and Schenk, O. (2021). New frontiers in bayesian modeling using the inla package in r. Journal of Statistical Software , 100:1--28

    2021

  120. [128]

    Van Niekerk, J., Krainski, E., Rustand, D., and Rue, H. (2023). A new avenue for bayesian inference with inla. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis , 181:107692

    2023

  121. [129]

    J., Jordan, M

    Wainwright, M. J., Jordan, M. I., et al. (2008). Graphical models, exponential families, and variational inference. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning , 1(1--2):1--305

    2008

  122. [130]

    Wang, G. (2022). Laplace approximation for conditional autoregressive models for spatial data of diseases. MethodsX , 9:101872

    2022

  123. [131]

    O., and Jonas, K

    Wang, H., den Daas, C., de Coul, E. O., and Jonas, K. J. (2023). Msm with hiv: Improving prevalence and risk estimates by a bayesian small area estimation modelling approach for public health service areas in the netherlands. Spatial and Spatio-temporal Epidemiology , 45:100577

    2023

  124. [132]

    Wegmann, D., Leuenberger, C., and Excoffier, L. (2009). Efficient approximate bayesian computation coupled with markov chain monte carlo without likelihood. Genetics , 182(4):1207--1218

    2009

  125. [133]

    Wilder, B., Mina, M., and Tambe, M. (2021). Tracking disease outbreaks from sparse data with bayesian inference. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 35, pages 4883--4891

    2021

  126. [134]

    J., Gabriel, E., Leatherbarrow, A

    Wilson, D. J., Gabriel, E., Leatherbarrow, A. J., Cheesbrough, J., Gee, S., Bolton, E., Fox, A., Hart, C. A., Diggle, P. J., and Fearnhead, P. (2009). Rapid evolution and the importance of recombination to the gastroenteric pathogen campylobacter jejuni. Molecular biology and ...

    2009

  127. [135]

    Wood, S. N. (2010). Statistical inference for noisy nonlinear ecological dynamic systems. Nature , 466(7310):1102--1104

    2010

  128. [136]

    Woroszy o, C., Choi, B., Healy Profit \'o s, J., Lee, J., Garabed, R., and Rempala, G. A. (2018). Modeling household transmission dynamics: application to waterborne diarrheal disease in central africa. Plos one , 13(11):e0206418

    2018

  129. [137]

    Zhang, L., Carpenter, B., Gelman, A., and Vehtari, A. (2022). Pathfinder: Parallel quasi-newton variational inference. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 23(306):1--49

    2022

  130. [138]

    Zimmermann, H., Wu, H., Esmaeili, B., and van de Meent, J.-W. (2021). Nested variational inference. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 34:20423--20435

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.