↓ Skip to main content

Hamiltonian Monte Carlo methods for efficient parameter estimation in steady state dynamical systems

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Hamiltonian Monte Carlo methods for efficient parameter estimation in steady state dynamical systems
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, July 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-15-253
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrei Kramer, Ben Calderhead, Nicole Radde

Abstract

Parameter estimation for differential equation models of intracellular processes is a highly relevant bu challenging task. The available experimental data do not usually contain enough information to identify all parameters uniquely, resulting in ill-posed estimation problems with often highly correlated parameters. Sampling-based Bayesian statistical approaches are appropriate for tackling this problem. The samples are typically generated via Markov chain Monte Carlo, however such methods are computationally expensive and their convergence may be slow, especially if there are strong correlations between parameters. Monte Carlo methods based on Euclidean or Riemannian Hamiltonian dynamics have been shown to outperform other samplers by making proposal moves that take the local sensitivities of the system's states into account and accepting these moves with high probability. However, the high computational cost involved with calculating the Hamiltonian trajectories prevents their widespread use for all but the smallest differential equation models. The further development of efficient sampling algorithms is therefore an important step towards improving the statistical analysis of predictive models of intracellular processes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 6%
United Kingdom 2 4%
Malaysia 1 2%
Portugal 1 2%
Unknown 44 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 27%
Researcher 7 14%
Student > Master 7 14%
Lecturer 3 6%
Other 3 6%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 11 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 10 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 16%
Mathematics 7 14%
Engineering 4 8%
Physics and Astronomy 3 6%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 14 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 July 2014.
All research outputs
#14,135,518
of 22,758,963 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#4,708
of 7,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,216
of 228,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#81
of 132 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,758,963 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,273 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 228,709 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 132 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.