Abstract
In this paper, we present a new method for the prediction and uncertainty quantification of data-driven multivariate systems. Traditionally, either mechanistic or non-mechanistic modeling methodologies have been used for prediction; however, it is uncommon for the two to be incorporated together. We compare the forecast accuracy of mechanistic modeling, using Bayesian inference, a non-mechanistic modeling approach based on state space reconstruction, and a novel hybrid methodology composed of the two for an age-structured population data set. The data come from cannibalistic flour beetles, in which it is observed that the adults preying on the eggs and pupae result in non-equilibrium population dynamics. Uncertainty quantification methods for the hybrid models are outlined and illustrated for these data. We perform an analysis of the results from Bayesian inference for the mechanistic model and hybrid models to suggest reasons why hybrid modeling methodology may enable more accurate forecasts of multivariate systems than traditional approaches.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adoteye K, Banks HT, Flores KB (2015) Optimal design of non-equilibrium experiments for genetic network interrogation. Appl Math Lett 40:84–89
Banks HT, Tran HT (2009) Mathematical and experimental modeling of physical and biological processes
Banks HT, Hu S, Thompson WC (2014) Modeling and inverse problems in the presence of uncertainty. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Banks HT, Banks JE, Link K, Rosenheim JA, Ross C, Tillman KA (2015) Model comparison tests to determine data information content. Appl Math Lett 43:10–18
Banks HT, Baraldi R, Flores K, McChesney C, Poag L (2015) Uncertainty quantification in modeling HIV viral mechanics. Math Biosci Eng: MBE 12(5):937–964
Billings SA (2013) Nonlinear system identification: NARMAX methods in the time, frequency, and spatio-temporal domains. Wiley, London
Casdagli M (1989) Nonlinear prediction of chaotic time series. Phys D 35(3):335–356
Cheng H, Tan PN, Gao J, Scripps J (2006) Multistep-ahead time series prediction. Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 3918 (765–774)
Cintrón-Arias A, Banks HT, Capaldi A, Lloyd AL (2009) A sensitivity matrix based methodology for inverse problem formulation. J Inverse Ill-posed Probl 17(6):545–564
Cobelli C, DiStefano JJ (1980) Parameter and structural identifiability concepts and ambiguities: a critical review and analysis. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 239(1):R7–R24
Constantino RF, Desharnais RA, Cushing JM, Dennis B (1997) Chaotic dynamics in an insect population. Science 276:1881–1882
De Gaetano A, Arino O (2000) Mathematical modelling of the intravenous glucose tolerance test. J Math Biol 40(2):136–168
Dennis B, Desharnais RA, Cushing JM, Costantino RF (1995) Nonlinear demographic dynamics: mathematical models, statistical methods, and biological experiments. Ecol Monogr 65(3):261–282
DiStefano III Joseph (2015) Dynamic systems biology modeling and simulation. Academic Press, Google-Books-ID: nWoYAgAAQBAJ
DiStefano J (2013) Dynamic systems biology modeling and simulation. Academic Press, London
Farmer J, Sidorowich J (1987) Predicting chaotic time series. Phys Rev Lett 59:845–848
Francis CRIC, Hurst RJ, Renwick JA (2003) Quantifying annual variation in catchability for commercial and research fishing. Fish Bull 101(2):293–304
Geisser S (1993) Predictive inference. CRC Press, Google-Books-ID: wfdlBZ_iwZoC
Haario H, Laine M, Mira A, Saksman E (2006) DRAM: efficient adaptive MCMC. Stat Comput 16(4):339–354
Hamilton F, Berry T, Sauer T (2016) Ensemble kalman filtering without a model. Phys Rev X 6:011021
Hamilton F, Lloyd A, Flores K (2017) Hybrid modeling and prediction of dynamical systems. arXiv:1701.08141
Hartig F, Dormann CF (2013) Does model-free forecasting really outperform the true model? Proc Natl Acad Sci 110(42):E3975–E3975
Hsieh C-H, Glaser SM, Lucas AJ, Sugihara G (2005) Distinguishing random environmental fluctuations from ecological catastrophes for the north pacific ocean. Nature 435(7040):336–340
Jimenez J, Moreno JA, Ruggeri GJ (1992) Forecasting on chaotic time series: a local optimal linear-reconstruction method. Phys Rev A 45(6):3553
Kugiumtzis D, Lingjærde OC, Christophersen N (1998) Regularized local linear prediction of chaotic time series. Phys D 112(3):344–360
Laine M (2011) DRAM—delayed rejection adaptive metropolis. http://helios.fmi.fi/~lainema/dram/
Meshkat N, Kuo CE, DiStefano Iii J (2014) On finding and using identifiable parameter combinations in nonlinear dynamic systems biology models and COMBOS: a novel web implementation. PLoS ONE 9(10):e110261
Olufsen MS, Ottesen JT (2013) A practical approach to parameter estimation applied to model predicting heart rate regulation. J Math Biol 67(1):39–68
Parlos AG, Rais OT, Atiya AF (2000) Multi-step-ahead prediction using dynamic recurrent neural networks. Neural Netw 13(7):765–786
Perretti C, Munch S, Sugihara G (2013) Model-free forecasting outperforms the correct mechanistic model for simulated and experimental data. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110:5253–5257
Raue A, Kreutz C, Maiwald T, Bachmann J, Schilling M, Klingmüller U, Timmer J (2009) Structural and practical identifiability analysis of partially observed dynamical models by exploiting the profile likelihood. Bioinformatics 25(15):1923–1929
Regonda S, Rajagopalan B, Lall U, Clark M, Moon Y-I (2005) Local polynomial method for ensemble forecast of time series. Nonlinear Proc Geophys 12:397–406
Sauer T (1994) Time series prediction by using delay coordinate embedding. In: Time series prediction: forecasting the future and understanding the past, pp. 175–193. Addison Wesley
Schelter B, Winterhalder M, Timmer J (2006) Handbook of time series analysis: recent theoretical developments and applications. Wiley, London
Schroer CG, Sauer T, Ott E, Yorke JA (1998) Predicting chaos most of the time from embeddings with self-intersections. Phys Rev Lett 80(7):1410
Smith RC (2014) Uncertainty quantification: theory, implementation, and applications. SIAM, Philadelphia, OCLC: 875327904
Smith LA (1992) Identification and prediction of low dimensional dynamics. Phys D 58(1):50–76
Strelioff CC, Hübler AW (2006) Medium-term prediction of chaos. Phys Rev Lett 96(4):044101
Sugihara G (1994) Nonlinear forecasting for the classification of natural time series. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser A: Phys Eng Sci 348(1688):477–495
Sugihara G, May R, Ye H, Hsieh C, Deyle E, Fogarty M, Munch S (2012) Detecting causality in complex ecosystems. Science 338(6106):496–500
Sugihara G, May RM (1990) Nonlinear forecasting as a way of distinguishing chaos from measurement error in time series. Nature 344(6268):734–741
Voss H, Timmer J, Kurths J (2002) Nonlinear dynamical system identification from uncertain and indirect measurements. Int J Bif Chaos 14:1905–1924
Ye H, Beamish RJ, Glaser SM, Grant SCH, Hsieh C, Richards LJ, Schnute JT, Sugihara G (2015) Equation-free mechanistic ecosystem forecasting using empirical dynamic modeling. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112(13):E1569–E1576
Yuan G, Lozier M, Pratt L, Jones C, Helfrich K (2004) Estimating the predicability of an oceanic time series using linear and nonlinear methods. J Geophys Res 109:C08002
Acknowledgements
The research was partially supported by Grants RTG/DMS-1246991 and DMS-1514929 from the National Science Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lagergren, J., Reeder, A., Hamilton, F. et al. Forecasting and Uncertainty Quantification Using a Hybrid of Mechanistic and Non-mechanistic Models for an Age-Structured Population Model. Bull Math Biol 80, 1578–1595 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-018-0421-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-018-0421-7