Statistics and Computing

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 325–337 | Cite as

WinBUGS - A Bayesian modelling framework: Concepts, structure, and extensibility

  • David J. Lunn
  • Andrew Thomas
  • Nicky Best
  • David Spiegelhalter
Article

Abstract

WinBUGS is a fully extensible modular framework for constructing and analysing Bayesian full probability models. Models may be specified either textually via the BUGS language or pictorially using a graphical interface called DoodleBUGS. WinBUGS processes the model specification and constructs an object-oriented representation of the model. The software offers a user-interface, based on dialogue boxes and menu commands, through which the model may then be analysed using Markov chain Monte Carlo techniques. In this paper we discuss how and why various modern computing concepts, such as object-orientation and run-time linking, feature in the software's design. We also discuss how the framework may be extended. It is possible to write specific applications that form an apparently seamless interface with WinBUGS for users with specialized requirements. It is also possible to interface with WinBUGS at a lower level by incorporating new object types that may be used by WinBUGS without knowledge of the modules in which they are implemented. Neither of these types of extension require access to, or even recompilation of, the WinBUGS source-code.

WinBUGS BUGS Markov chain Monte Carlo directed acyclic graphs object-orientation type extension run-time linking 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ayanian J.Z., Landrum M.B., Normand S.-L.T., Guadagnoli E., and McNeil B.J. 1998. Rating the appropriateness of coronary angiography-Do practicing physicians agree with an expert panel and with each other?. New England Journal of Medicine 338: 1896–1904.Google Scholar
  2. Beal S.L. and Sheiner L.B. 1992. NONMEM User's Guide, parts I-VII. NONMEM Project Group, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  3. Besag J., Green P., Higdon D., and Mengersen K. 1995. Bayesian computation and stochastic systems. Statistical Science 10: 3–66.Google Scholar
  4. Cornell G. and Horstmann C.S. 1997. Core Java, 2nd Edition. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  5. Gelfand A.E. and Smith A.F.M. 1990. Sampling-based approaches to calculating marginal densities. Journal of the American Statistical Association 85: 398–409.Google Scholar
  6. Gelman A., Carlin J.B., Stern H.S., and Rubin D.B. 1995. Bayesian Data Analysis. Chapman and Hall, ondon.Google Scholar
  7. Geman S. and Geman D. 1984. Stochastic relaxation, Gibbs distributions and the Bayesian restoration of images. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 6: 721–741.Google Scholar
  8. Gilks W. 1992. Derivative-free adaptive rejection sampling for Gibbs sampling. In: Bernardo J.M., Berger J.O., Dawid A.P., and Smith A.F.M. (Eds.), Bayesian Statistics 4. Oxford University Press, xford, pp. 641–665.Google Scholar
  9. GilksW.R., Richardson S., and Spiegelhalter D.J. 1996. Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice. Chapman and Hall, ondon.Google Scholar
  10. Gilks W.R. and Wild P. 1992. Adaptive rejection sampling for Gibbs sampling. Applied Statistics 41: 337–348.Google Scholar
  11. Hastings W.K. 1970. Monte Carlo sampling-based methods using Markov chains and their applications. Biometrika 57: 97–109.Google Scholar
  12. Lauritzen S.L., Dawid A.P., Larsen B.N., and Leimer H.G. 1990. Independence properties of directed Markov fields. Networks 20: 491–505.Google Scholar
  13. Lunn D.J. and Aarons L. 1998. The pharmacokinetics of saquinavir: A Markov chain Monte Carlo population analysis. Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics 26: 47–74.Google Scholar
  14. Lunn D.J., Wakefield J., Thomas A., Best N., and Spiegelhalter D. 1998. PK Bugs User Guide. Dept. Epidemiology and Public Health, Imperial College School of Medicine, London.Google Scholar
  15. Metropolis N., Rosenbluth A.W., Rosenbluth M.N., Teller A.H., and Teller E. 1953. Equations of state calculations by fast computing machines. Journal of Chemical Physics 21: 1087–1091.Google Scholar
  16. Meyer B. 1997. Object Oriented Software Construction, 2nd Edition. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  17. Neal R.M. 1997. Markov chain Monte Carlo methods based on 'slicing' the density function. Technical Report 9722, Dept. of Statistics, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  18. Pfister C. 1997. Component Software: A Case Study Using Black Box Components. Oberon microsystems, Inc., Zurich.Google Scholar
  19. Pitt M.K. and Shephard N. 1999. Time-varying covariances: A factor stochastic volatility approach. In Bernardo J.M., Berger J.O., Dawid A.P., and Smith A.F.M. (Eds.), Bayesian Statistics 6. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 547–570.Google Scholar
  20. Reiser M. and Wirth N. 1992. Programming in Oberon: Steps Beyond Pascal and Modula. ACM Press, New York.Google Scholar
  21. Ripley B.D. 1987. Stochastic Simulation. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  22. Spiegelhalter D.J. 1998. Bayesian graphical modelling: A case-study in monitoring health outcomes. Applied Statistics 47: 115–133.Google Scholar
  23. Spiegelhalter D.J., BestN.G., GilksW.R., and Inskip H. 1996a. Hepatitis B: A case study in MCMC methods. In Gilks W.R., Richardson S., and Spiegelhalter D.J. (Eds.), Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice. Chapman and Hall, London, pp. 21–43.Google Scholar
  24. Spiegelhalter D.J., Dawid A.P., Lauritzen S.L., and Cowell R.G. 1993. Bayesian analysis in expert systems (with discussion). Statistical Science 8: 219–283.Google Scholar
  25. Spiegelhalter D.J., Thomas A., and Best N.G. 1996. Computation on Bayesian graphical models. In Bernardo J.M., Berger J.O., Dawid A.P., and Smith A.F.M. (Eds.), Bayesian Statistics 5. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 407–425.Google Scholar
  26. Spiegelhalter D., Thomas A., Best N., and Gilks W. 1996b. BUGS 0.5: Bayesian inference Using Gibbs Sampling-Manual (version ii). Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  27. Szyperski C. 1995. Component-oriented programming: A refined variation of object-oriented programming. The Oberon Tribune 1: 1–5.Google Scholar
  28. Wakefield J. and Morris S. 1999. Spatial dependence and errorsin-variables in environmental epidemiology. In Bernardo J.M., Berger J.O., Dawid A.P., and Smith A.F.M. (Eds.), Bayesian Statistics 6. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 657–684.Google Scholar
  29. Whittaker J. 1990. Graphical Models in Applied Multivariate Analysis. Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • David J. Lunn
    • 1
  • Andrew Thomas
    • 2
  • Nicky Best
    • 3
  • David Spiegelhalter
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Epidemiology and Public HealthImperial College School of MedicineLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of Epidemiology and Public HealthImperial College School of MedicineLondonUK
  3. 3.Department of Epidemiology and Public HealthImperial College School of MedicineLondonUK
  4. 4.Medical Research Council Biostatistics UnitInstitute of Public HealthCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations