Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Bayesian methods are advantageous for biological modelling studies due to their ability to quantify and characterize posterior variability in model parameters. When Bayesian methods cannot be applied, due either to non-determinism in the model or limitations on system observability, approximate Bayesian computation (ABC) methods can be used to similar effect, despite producing inflated estimates of the true posterior variance. Owing to generally differing application domains, there are few studies comparing Bayesian and ABC methods, and thus there is little understanding of the properties and magnitude of this uncertainty inflation. To address this problem, we present two popular strategies for ABC sampling that we have adapted to perform exact Bayesian inference, and compare them on several model problems. We find that one sampler was impractical for exact inference due to its sensitivity to a key normalizing constant, and additionally highlight sensitivities of both samplers to various algorithmic parameters and model conditions. We conclude with a study of the O'Hara–Rudy cardiac action potential model to quantify the uncertainty amplification resulting from employing ABC using a set of clinically relevant biomarkers. We hope that this work serves to guide the implementation and comparative assessment of Bayesian and ABC sampling techniques in biological models.

Original publication




Journal article


Journal of The Royal Society Interface


The Royal Society

Publication Date





20170340 - 20170340