How is model-related uncertainty quantified and reported in different disciplines?
Authors:
Emily G. Simmonds,
Kwaku Peprah Adjei,
Christoffer Wold Andersen,
Janne Cathrin Hetle Aspheim,
Claudia Battistin,
Nicola Bulso,
Hannah Christensen,
Benjamin Cretois,
Ryan Cubero,
Ivan A. Davidovich,
Lisa Dickel,
Benjamin Dunn,
Etienne Dunn-Sigouin,
Karin Dyrstad,
Sigurd Einum,
Donata Giglio,
Haakon Gjerlow,
Amelie Godefroidt,
Ricardo Gonzalez-Gil,
Soledad Gonzalo Cogno,
Fabian Grosse,
Paul Halloran,
Mari F. Jensen,
John James Kennedy,
Peter Egge Langsaether
, et al. (18 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
How do we know how much we know? Quantifying uncertainty associated with our modelling work is the only way we can answer how much we know about any phenomenon. With quantitative science now highly influential in the public sphere and the results from models translating into action, we must support our conclusions with sufficient rigour to produce useful, reproducible results. Incomplete considera…
▽ More
How do we know how much we know? Quantifying uncertainty associated with our modelling work is the only way we can answer how much we know about any phenomenon. With quantitative science now highly influential in the public sphere and the results from models translating into action, we must support our conclusions with sufficient rigour to produce useful, reproducible results. Incomplete consideration of model-based uncertainties can lead to false conclusions with real world impacts. Despite these potentially damaging consequences, uncertainty consideration is incomplete both within and across scientific fields. We take a unique interdisciplinary approach and conduct a systematic audit of model-related uncertainty quantification from seven scientific fields, spanning the biological, physical, and social sciences. Our results show no single field is achieving complete consideration of model uncertainties, but together we can fill the gaps. We propose opportunities to improve the quantification of uncertainty through use of a source framework for uncertainty consideration, model type specific guidelines, improved presentation, and shared best practice. We also identify shared outstanding challenges (uncertainty in input data, balancing trade-offs, error propagation, and defining how much uncertainty is required). Finally, we make nine concrete recommendations for current practice (following good practice guidelines and an uncertainty checklist, presenting uncertainty numerically, and propagating model-related uncertainty into conclusions), future research priorities (uncertainty in input data, quantifying uncertainty in complex models, and the importance of missing uncertainty in different contexts), and general research standards across the sciences (transparency about study limitations and dedicated uncertainty sections of manuscripts).
△ Less
Submitted 1 July, 2022; v1 submitted 24 June, 2022;
originally announced June 2022.
Accounting for spatial varying sampling effort due to accessibility in Citizen Science data: A case study of moose in Norway
Authors:
J. Sicacha-Parada,
I. Steinsland,
B. Cretois,
J. Borgelt
Abstract:
Citizen Scientists together with an increasing access to technology provide large datasets that can be used to study e.g. ecology and biodiversity. Unknown and varying sampling effort is a major issue when making inference based on citizen science data. In this paper we propose a modeling approach for accounting for variation in sampling effort due to accessibility. The paper is based on a illustr…
▽ More
Citizen Scientists together with an increasing access to technology provide large datasets that can be used to study e.g. ecology and biodiversity. Unknown and varying sampling effort is a major issue when making inference based on citizen science data. In this paper we propose a modeling approach for accounting for variation in sampling effort due to accessibility. The paper is based on a illustrative case study using citizen science data of moose occurrence in Hedmark, Norway. The aim is to make inference about the importance of two geographical properties known to influence moose occurrence; terrain ruggedness index and solar radiation. Explanatory analysis show that moose occurrences are overrepresented close to roads, and we use distance to roads as a proxy for accessibility. We propose a model based on a Bayesian Log-Gaussian Cox Process specification for occurrence. The model accounts for accessibility through a distance sampling approach. This approach can be seen as a thinning process where probability of thinning, i.e. not observing, increases with increasing distances. For the moose case study distance to roads are used. Computationally efficient full Bayesian inference is performed using the Integrated Nested Laplace Approximation and the Stochastic Partial Differential Equation approach for spatial modeling. The proposed model as well as the consequences of not accounting for varying sampling effort due to accessibility are studied through a simulation study based on the case study. Considerable biases are found in estimates for the effect of radiation on moose occurrence when accessibility is not considered in the model.
△ Less
Submitted 26 November, 2019;
originally announced November 2019.
