### Abstract

The fate of scientific hypotheses often relies on the ability of acomputational model to explain the data, quantified in modern statisticalapproaches by the likelihood function. The log-likelihood is the key elementfor parameter estimation and model evaluation. However, the log-likelihood ofcomplex models in fields such as computational biology and neuroscience isoften intractable to compute analytically or numerically. In those cases,researchers can often only estimate the log-likelihood by comparing observeddata with synthetic observations generated by model simulations. Standardtechniques to approximate the likelihood via simulation either use summarystatistics of the data or are at risk of producing severe biases in theestimate. Here, we explore another method, inverse binomial sampling (IBS),which can estimate the log-likelihood of an entire data set efficiently andwithout bias. For each observation, IBS draws samples from the simulator modeluntil one matches the observation. The log-likelihood estimate is then afunction of the number of samples drawn. The variance of this estimator isuniformly bounded, achieves the minimum variance for an unbiased estimator, andwe can compute calibrated estimates of the variance. We provide theoreticalarguments in favor of IBS and an empirical assessment of the method formaximum-likelihood estimation with simulation-based models. As case studies, wetake three model-fitting problems of increasing complexity from computationaland cognitive neuroscience. In all problems, IBS generally produces lower errorin the estimated parameters and maximum log-likelihood values than alternativesampling methods with the same average number of samples. Our resultsdemonstrate the potential of IBS as a practical, robust, and easy to implementmethod for log-likelihood evaluation when exact techniques are not available.