Comparing Data Assimilation and Likelihood-Based Inference on Latent State Estimation in Agent-Based Models
主体模型潜在状态估计：数据同化与似然推断比较AI 解读 ↓
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明
本页整理公开书目信息，不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成，未完成全文核验，可能有误；具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本，未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要；缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
本页为预印本版本；arXiv 收录、作者填写的期刊信息以及作者既有发表经历，都不单独证明本篇已接收。作者发表记录按 OpenAlex 身份与完整姓名、本站覆盖期刊 ISSN 及正式卷期核对，只展示已核实例，档案仍可能误合并。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录，不合计多个记录；关联记录可能包含正式发表版本，不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零，引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配，同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列，再参考通用方法与发表日期。
分类依据与纠错
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类：摘要研究可观测时间序列的潜在状态恢复，并明确比较个体及聚合层次的预测表现。
反馈分类问题
正在核对关联版本…
代码、数据与补充材料
正在核对对应版本的资源…
主体模型潜在状态估计：数据同化与似然推断比较
- 研究问题
- 对于可观测时间序列由部分潜在个体状态驱动的主体模型，数据同化与似然推断在状态恢复及不同聚合层次预测上如何比较？
- 方法与思路
- 作者在有界信心意见动态模型中比较数据同化与模型专属似然推断，并考察模型误设和不同参数设置下的状态与预测表现。
- 材料陈述的贡献
- 摘要称，似然推断更好恢复个体意见并改善个体预测，聚合层面两者相近；数据同化在部分参数设置下仍具竞争性。
- 阅读关注点
- 应核对同化方法与似然的具体实现、可观测信息和计算预算是否可比，以及误设类型、参数范围和聚合层次如何影响结论。
- 阅读边界
- 所据为 arXiv 预印本，同行评审或期刊接收未获核实；比较集中于一个意见动态模型，不能据此认定结论适用于所有主体模型。
原文摘要
In this paper, we present the first systematic comparison of Data Assimilation (DA) and Likelihood-Based Inference (LBI) in the context of an Agent-Based Model (ABM). These models generate observable time series driven by evolving, partially-latent microstates. Latent states must be estimated to align simulations with real-world data, a task traditionally addressed by DA, particularly in continuous and equation-based models used in weather forecasting. However, the nature of ABMs poses challenges for standard DA methods. Solving such issues requires adapting previous DA techniques or using ad hoc alternatives such as LBI. DA approximates the likelihood in a model-agnostic way, making it broadly applicable but potentially less precise. In contrast, LBI provides more accurate state estimation by directly leveraging the model's likelihood, but at the cost of requiring a hand-crafted, model-specific likelihood function, which may be complex or infeasible to derive. We compare the two methods on the Bounded-Confidence Model, a well-known opinion dynamics ABM, where agents are affected only by others holding sufficiently similar opinions. We find that LBI better recovers latent agent-level opinions, even under model mis-specification, leading to improved individual-level forecasts. At the aggregate level, however, both methods perform comparably, and DA remains competitive across levels of aggregation under certain parameter settings. Our findings suggest that DA is well-suited for aggregate predictions, while LBI is preferable for agent-level inference.