SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2302.01528

Four principles for improved statistical ecology

Abstract

Increasing attention has been drawn to the misuse of statistical methods over recent years, with particular concern about the prevalence of practices such as poor experimental design, cherry-picking and inadequate reporting. These failures are largely unintentional and no more common in ecology than in other scientific disciplines, with many of them easily remedied given the right guidance. Originating from a discussion at the 2020 International Statistical Ecology Conference, we show how ecologists can build their research following four guiding principles for impactful statistical research practices: 1. Define a focused research question, then plan sampling and analysis to answer it; 2. Develop a model that accounts for the distribution and dependence of your data; 3. Emphasise effect sizes to replace statistical significance with ecological relevance; 4. Report your methods and findings in sufficient detail so that your research is valid and reproducible. Listed in approximate order of importance, these principles provide a framework for experimental design and reporting that guards against unsound practices. Starting with a well-defined research question allows researchers to create an efficient study to answer it, and guards against poor research practices that lead to false positives and poor replicability. Correct and appropriate statistical models give sound conclusions, good reporting practices and a focus on ecological relevance make results impactful and replicable. Illustrated with an example from a recent study into the impact of disturbance on upland swamps, this paper explains the rationale for the selection and use of effective statistical practices and provides practical guidance for ecologists seeking to improve their use of statistical methods.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Gordana Popovic, Tanya J. Mason, Tiago A. Marques, Joanne Potts, Szymon M. Drobniak, Rocío Joo, Res Altwegg, Carolyn C. I. Burns, Michael A. McCarthy, Alison Johnston, Shinichi Nakagawa, Louise McMillan, Kadambari Devarajan, Patrick l. Taggart, Alison C. Wunderlich, Magdalena M. Mair, Juan Andrés Martínez-Lanfranco, Malgorzata Lagisz, Patrice P. Pottier. 2023-02-03. Four principles for improved statistical ecology. https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.01528

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME