mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

On the selection and effectiveness of pseudo-absences for species distribution modeling with deep learning

arXiv 2401.02989 ↗First posted 3 Jan 2024q-bio.QM cs.LG q-bio.PEcited by 10

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Species distribution modeling is a highly versatile tool for understanding the intricate relationship between environmental conditions and species occurrences. However, the available data often lacks information on confirmed species absence and is limited to opportunistically sampled, presence-only observations. To overcome this limitation, a common approach is to employ pseudo-absences, which are specific geographic locations designated as negative samples. While pseudo-absences are well-established for single-species distribution models, their application in the context of multi-species neural networks remains underexplored. Notably, the significant class imbalance between species presences and pseudo-absences is often left unaddressed. Moreover, the existence of different types of pseudo-absences (e.g., random and target-group background points) adds complexity to the selection process. Determining the optimal combination of pseudo-absences types is difficult and depends on the characteristics of the data, particularly considering that certain types of pseudo-absences can be used to mitigate geographic biases. In this paper, we demonstrate that these challenges can be effectively tackled by integrating pseudo-absences in the training of multi-species neural networks through modifications to the loss function. This adjustment involves assigning different weights to the distinct terms of the loss function, thereby addressing both the class imbalance and the choice of pseudo-absence types. Additionally, we propose a strategy to set these loss weights using spatial block cross-validation with presence-only data. We evaluate our approach using a benchmark dataset containing independent presence-absence data from six different regions and report improved results when compared to competing approaches.

Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 75 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Jan 2024.

Builds on

15 of 75 references.

References · 15

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
  2. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
  3. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
  4. 2015Batch Normalization: Accelerating Deep Network Training by Reducing Internal Covariate Shiftcited by 7,005
  5. 2019Learning Imbalanced Datasets with Label-Distribution-Aware Margin Losscited by 989
  6. 2021Revisiting Deep Learning Models for Tabular Datacited by 740
  7. 2021Deep Neural Networks and Tabular Data: A Surveycited by 491
  8. 2018Learning from positive and unlabeled data: a surveycited by 219
  9. 2021Seeing biodiversity: perspectives in machine learning for wildlife conservationcited by 130
  10. 2020Distribution-Balanced Loss for Multi-Label Classification in Long-Tailed Datasetscited by 122
  11. 2019Presence-Only Geographical Priors for Fine-Grained Image Classificationcited by 109
  12. 2021Multi-Label Learning from Single Positive Labelscited by 81
3 more
  1. 2023Spatial Implicit Neural Representations for Global-Scale Species Mappingcited by 59
  2. 2022Acknowledging the Unknown for Multi-label Learning with Single Positive Labelscited by 24
  3. 2016Deep Multi-Species Embeddingcited by 20

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 5; 2025: 4; 2026: 1.

10 papers.