Hidden Markov models: Pitfalls and opportunities in ecology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hidden Markov models (HMMs) and their extensions are attractive methods for analysing ecological data where noisy, multivariate measurements are made of a hidden, ecological process, and where this hidden process is represented by a sequence of discrete states. Yet, as these models become more complex and challenging to understand, it is important to consider what pitfalls these methods have and what opportunities there are for future research to address these pitfalls. In this paper, we review five lesser known pitfalls one can encounter when using HMMs or their extensions to solve ecological problems: (a) violation of the snapshot property in continuous‐time HMMs; (b) biased inference from hierarchical HMMs when applied to temporally misaligned processes; (c) sensitive inference from using random effects to partially pool across heterogeneous individuals; (d) computational burden when using HMMs to approximate models with continuous state spaces; and (e) difficulty linking the hidden process to space or environment. This review is for ecologists and ecological statisticians familiar with HMMs, but who may be less aware of the problems that arise in more specialised applications. We demonstrate how each pitfall arises, by simulation or example, and discuss why this pitfall is important to consider. Along with identifying the problems, we highlight potential research opportunities and offer ideas that may help alleviate these pitfalls. Each of the methods we review are solutions to current ecological research problems. We intend for this paper to heighten awareness of the pitfalls ecologists may encounter when applying these more advanced methods, but we also hope that by highlighting future research opportunities, we can inspire ecological statisticians to weaken these pitfalls and provide improved methods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.042 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".