IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v430y2020ics0304380020301496.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing loss functions and interval estimates for survival data

Author

Listed:
  • Augustine, Starrlight
  • Lika, Konstadia
  • Kooijman, Sebastiaan A.L.M.

Abstract

We compare parameter point and interval estimates based on the symmetric bounded loss function, as used in the Add-my-Pet collection on animal energetics, with the maximum likelihood method for number of surviving individuals as function of time. The aging module of Dynamic Energy Budget theory is used to generate Monte Carlo data sets. The simulations show that estimates based on the symmetric loss function give almost the same results in terms of point as well as interval estimates, compared to maximum likelihood estimation, while this loss function avoids the need to model the stochastic component of data sets. For most data types on energetics, we don’t have such stochastic models, so maximum likelihood methods cannot be used. Our findings support the view that model plasticity dominates interval estimates, rather than the detailed structure of the stochastic component.

Suggested Citation

  • Augustine, Starrlight & Lika, Konstadia & Kooijman, Sebastiaan A.L.M., 2020. "Comparing loss functions and interval estimates for survival data," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 430(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:430:y:2020:i:c:s0304380020301496
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2020.109077
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380020301496
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2020.109077?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lika, Konstadia & Augustine, Starrlight & Kooijman, Sebastiaan A.L.M., 2020. "The use of augmented loss functions for estimating dynamic energy budget parameters," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 428(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lika, Konstadia & Augustine, Starrlight & Kooijman, Sebastiaan A.L.M., 2020. "The use of augmented loss functions for estimating dynamic energy budget parameters," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 428(C).
    2. Lika, Konstadia & Kooijman, Sebastiaan A.L.M., 2024. "The relationship between confidence intervals and distributions of estimators for parameters of deterministic models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 490(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kooijman, Sebastiaan A.L.M., 2020. "The standard dynamic energy budget model has no plausible alternatives," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 428(C).
    2. Matyja, Konrad, 2023. "Standard dynamic energy budget model parameter sensitivity," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 478(C).
    3. Kooijman, Sebastiaan A.L.M., 2020. "The comparative energetics of petrels and penguins," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 427(C).
    4. Lika, Konstadia & Kooijman, Sebastiaan A.L.M., 2024. "The relationship between confidence intervals and distributions of estimators for parameters of deterministic models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 490(C).
    5. Guillaumot, Charlène & Saucède, Thomas & Morley, Simon A. & Augustine, Starrlight & Danis, Bruno & Kooijman, Sebastiaan, 2020. "Can DEB models infer metabolic differences between intertidal and subtidal morphotypes of the Antarctic limpet Nacella concinna (Strebel, 1908)?," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 430(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:430:y:2020:i:c:s0304380020301496. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.