SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2304.12964

How to account for behavioural states in step-selection analysis: a model comparison

Abstract

Step-selection models are widely used to study animals' fine-scale habitat selection based on movement data. Resource preferences and movement patterns, however, can depend on the animal's unobserved behavioural states, such as resting or foraging. This is ignored in standard (integrated) step-selection analyses (SSA, iSSA). While different approaches have emerged to account for such states in the analysis, the performance of such approaches and the consequences of ignoring the states in the analysis have rarely been quantified. We evaluated the recent idea of combining hidden Markov chains and iSSA in a single modelling framework. The resulting Markov-switching integrated step-selection analysis (MS-iSSA) allows for a joint estimation of both the underlying behavioural states and the associated state-dependent habitat selection. In an extensive simulation study, we compared the MS-iSSA to both the standard iSSA and a classification-based iSSA (i.e., a two-step approach based on a separate prior state classification). We further illustrate the three approaches in a case study on fine-scale interactions of simultaneously tracked bank voles (Myodes glareolus). The results indicate that standard iSSAs can lead to erroneous conclusions due to both biased estimates and unreliable p-values when ignoring underlying behavioural states. We found the same for iSSAs based on prior state-classifications, as they ignore misclassifications and classification uncertainties. The MS-iSSA, on the other hand, performed well in parameter estimation and decoding of behavioural states. To facilitate its use, we implemented the MS-iSSA approach in the R package msissa available on GitHub.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Jennifer Pohle, Johannes Signer, Jana A. Eccard, Melanie Dammhahn, Ulrike E. Schlägel. 2023-04-25. How to account for behavioural states in step-selection analysis: a model comparison. https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.12964

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