Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42205237›Full record

ArticlePNAS nexus2026

Comparing data assimilation and likelihood-based inference on latent state estimation in agent-based models.

Blas Kolic, Corrado Monti, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales, Marco Pangallo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PNAS nexus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Blas KolicInstitute of Big Data (IBiDat), Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Ronda de Toledo, 1, Madrid 28005, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3175-4254
Corrado MontiCENTAI, Corso Inghilterra, 3, Turin 10138, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6846-5718
Gianmarco De Francisci MoralesIntesa Sanpaolo Innovation Center, Corso Inghilterra, 3, Turin 10138, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2415-494X
Marco PangalloCENTAI, Corso Inghilterra, 3, Turin 10138, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9966-1674

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this article, we present the first systematic comparison of data assimilation (DA) and likelihood-based inference (LBI) in the context of an agent-based model (ABM). These models generate observable time series driven by evolving, partially latent microstates. Latent states must be estimated to align simulations with real-world data, a task traditionally addressed by DA, particularly in continuous and equation-based models used in weather forecasting. However, the nature of ABMs poses challenges for standard DA methods. Solving such issues requires adapting previous DA techniques or using ad hoc alternatives such as LBI. DA approximates the likelihood in a model-agnostic way, making it broadly applicable but potentially less precise. In contrast, LBI provides more accurate state estimation by directly leveraging the model's likelihood, but at the cost of requiring a hand-crafted, model-specific likelihood function, which may be complex or infeasible to derive. We compare the two methods on the bounded-confidence model, a well-known opinion dynamics ABM, where agents are affected only by others holding sufficiently similar opinions. We find that LBI better recovers latent agent-level opinions, even under model misspecification, leading to improved individual-level forecasts. At the aggregate level, however, both methods perform comparably, and DA remains competitive across levels of aggregation under certain parameter settings. Our findings suggest that DA is well-suited for aggregate predictions, while LBI is preferable for agent-level inference.

Indexed as

ABMdata assimilationinferencelikelihood-based inferenceprobabilistic modeling

Identifiers

PMID42205237
PMCPMC13202457

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.