Papers › JAGS, NIMBLE, Stan: a detailed comparison among Bayesian MCMC software

JAGS, NIMBLE, Stan: a detailed comparison among Bayesian MCMC software

20 Jul 2021arXiv:2107.09357links table onlyarchive 2025-07-28

Mario Beraha, Daniele Falco, Alessandra Guglielmi

The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.

The aim of this work is the comparison of the performance of the three popular software platforms JAGS, NIMBLE and Stan. These probabilistic programming languages are able to automatically generate samples from the posterior distribution of interest using MCMC algorithms, starting from the specification of a Bayesian model, i.e. the likelihood and the prior. The final goal is to present a detailed analysis of their strengths and weaknesses to statisticians or applied scientists. In this way, we wish to contribute to make them fully aware of the pros and cons of this software. We carry out a systematic comparison of the three platforms on a wide class of models, prior distributions, and data generating mechanisms. Our extensive simulation studies evaluate the quality of the MCMC chains produced, the efficiency of the software and the goodness of fit of the output. We also consider the efficiency of the parallelization made by the three platforms.

PaperPDFCode

Code

daniele-falco/software_comparison officialmentioned in paper report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections