ArticleProceedings. Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences2021
Bayesian uncertainty quantification for data-driven equation learning.
Article in Proceedings. Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in surrogate modeling for biological agent-based simulations: trends, challenges, and future prospects.Journal of mathematical biology · 2025Review
- Translating microbial kinetics into quantitative responses and testable hypotheses using Kinbiont.Nature communications · 2025Article
- How modulation of the tumor microenvironment drives cancer immune escape dynamics.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Direct Estimation of Parameters in ODE Models Using WENDy: Weak-Form Estimation of Nonlinear Dynamics.Bulletin of mathematical biology · 2023Article
- Direct Estimation of Parameters in ODE Models Using WENDy: Weak-form Estimation of Nonlinear Dynamics.ArXiv · 2023Article
- Computationally efficient mechanism discovery for cell invasion with uncertainty quantification.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Equation learning aims to infer differential equation models from data. While a number of studies have shown that differential equation models can be successfully identified when the data are sufficiently detailed and corrupted with relatively small amounts of noise, the relationship between observation noise and uncertainty in the learned differential equation models remains unexplored. We demonstrate that for noisy datasets there exists great variation in both the structure of the learned differential equation models and their parameter values. We explore how to exploit multiple datasets to quantify uncertainty in the learned models, and at the same time draw mechanistic conclusions about the target differential equations. We showcase our results using simulation data from a relatively straightforward agent-based model (ABM) which has a well-characterized partial differential equation description that provides highly accurate predictions of averaged ABM behaviours in relevant regions of parameter space. Our approach combines equation learning methods with Bayesian inference approaches so that a quantification of uncertainty can be given by the posterior parameter distribution of the learned model.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.