Näytä suppeat kuvailutiedot

dc.contributor.authorAbrego, Nerea
dc.contributor.authorOvaskainen, Otso
dc.date.accessioned2024-01-09T12:36:33Z
dc.date.available2024-01-09T12:36:33Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.identifier.citationAbrego, N., & Ovaskainen, O. (2023). Evaluating the predictive performance of presence–absence models : Why can the same model appear excellent or poor?. <i>Ecology and Evolution </i>, <i>13</i>(12), Article e10784. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.10784" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.10784</a>
dc.identifier.otherCONVID_197376166
dc.identifier.urihttps://jyx.jyu.fi/handle/123456789/92610
dc.description.abstractWhen comparing multiple models of species distribution, models yielding higher predictive performance are clearly to be favored. A more difficult question is how to decide whether even the best model is “good enough”. Here, we clarify key choices and metrics related to evaluating the predictive performance of presence–absence models. We use a hierarchical case study to evaluate how four metrics of predictive performance (AUC, Tjur's R2, max-Kappa, and max-TSS) relate to each other, the random and fixed effects parts of the model, the spatial scale at which predictive performance is measured, and the cross-validation strategy chosen. We demonstrate that the very same metric can achieve different values for the very same model, even when similar cross-validation strategies are followed, depending on the spatial scale at which predictive performance is measured. Among metrics, Tjur's R2 and max-Kappa generally increase with species' prevalence, whereas AUC and max-TSS are largely independent of prevalence. Thus, Tjur's R2 and max-Kappa often reach lower values when measured at the smallest scales considered in the study, while AUC and max-TSS reaching similar values across the different spatial levels included in the study. However, they provide complementary insights on predictive performance. The very same model may appear excellent or poor not only due to the applied metric, but also how predictive performance is exactly calculated, calling for great caution on the interpretation of predictive performance. The most comprehensive evaluation of predictive performance can be obtained by evaluating predictive performance through the combination of measures providing complementary insights. Instead of following simple rules of thumb or focusing on absolute values, we recommend comparing the achieved predictive performance to the researcher's own a priori expectations on how easy it is to make predictions related to the same question that the model is used for.en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherJohn Wiley & Sons
dc.relation.ispartofseriesEcology and Evolution
dc.rightsCC BY 4.0
dc.subject.otheraccuracy
dc.subject.otherAUC
dc.subject.othercross-validation
dc.subject.otherdiscrimination
dc.subject.otherjoint species distribution model
dc.subject.othermax-kappa
dc.subject.othermax-TSS
dc.subject.otherpresence–absence model
dc.subject.othersensitivity
dc.subject.otherspecificity
dc.subject.otherTjur's R
dc.titleEvaluating the predictive performance of presence–absence models : Why can the same model appear excellent or poor?
dc.typearticle
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:fi:jyu-202401091113
dc.contributor.laitosBio- ja ympäristötieteiden laitosfi
dc.contributor.laitosDepartment of Biological and Environmental Scienceen
dc.type.urihttp://purl.org/eprint/type/JournalArticle
dc.type.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1
dc.description.reviewstatuspeerReviewed
dc.relation.issn2045-7758
dc.relation.numberinseries12
dc.relation.volume13
dc.type.versionpublishedVersion
dc.rights.copyright© 2023 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
dc.rights.accesslevelopenAccessfi
dc.relation.grantnumber856506
dc.relation.grantnumber856506
dc.relation.grantnumber342374
dc.relation.projectidinfo:eu-repo/grantAgreement/EC/H2020/856506/EU//LIFEPLAN
dc.subject.ysoarviointi
dc.subject.ysosuorituskyky
dc.subject.ysomittarit (mittaus)
dc.subject.ysolevinneisyys
dc.subject.ysomittaus
dc.format.contentfulltext
jyx.subject.urihttp://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p7413
jyx.subject.urihttp://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p14041
jyx.subject.urihttp://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p21210
jyx.subject.urihttp://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p7415
jyx.subject.urihttp://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p4794
dc.rights.urlhttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.relation.doi10.1002/ece3.10784
dc.relation.funderEuropean Commissionen
dc.relation.funderResearch Council of Finlanden
dc.relation.funderEuroopan komissiofi
dc.relation.funderSuomen Akatemiafi
jyx.fundingprogramERC European Research Council, H2020en
jyx.fundingprogramAcademy Research Fellow, AoFen
jyx.fundingprogramERC European Research Council, H2020fi
jyx.fundingprogramAkatemiatutkija, SAfi
jyx.fundinginformationAcademy of Finland, Grant/Award Number: 309581 and 342374; H2020 European Research Council, Grant/Award Number: 856506; Jane ja Aatos Erkon Säätiö; Norges Forskningsråd, Grant/Award Number: 223257
dc.type.okmA1


Aineistoon kuuluvat tiedostot

Thumbnail

Aineisto kuuluu seuraaviin kokoelmiin

Näytä suppeat kuvailutiedot

CC BY 4.0
Ellei muuten mainita, aineiston lisenssi on CC BY 4.0