Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 160

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Maxent is not a presence–absence method: a comment on Thibaud et al.

Guillera‐Arroita, Gurutzeta, Lahoz‐Monfort, José J., Elith, Jane·2014·Methods in Ecology and Evolution

Abstract

Summary: Thibaud et al. (Methods in Ecology and Evolution 2014) present a framework for simulating species and evaluating the relative effects of factors affecting the predictions from species distribution models (SDMs). They demonstrate their approach by generating presence–absence data sets for different simulated species and analysing them using four modelling methods: three presence–absence methods and Maxent, which is a presence‐background modelling tool. One of their results is striking: that their use of Maxent performs well in estimating occupancy probabilities and even outperforms the other methods on small sample sizes. This result is of concern to us, because it suggests that Maxent directly offers a useful alternative for modelling presence–absence data, which may prompt widespread adoption of this use of Maxent. In this paper, we explore why this would be a mistake. We draw on the theory underlying how the Maxent model operates and on simulations to discover: (i) why Maxent appears to fare as well as it does in their evaluation and (ii) why the best‐suited presence–absence method for data analysis (the generating model; a GLM) does not perform as well as we would expect. We demonstrate that (i) the good performance observed for Maxent is largely a coincidence; the simulated species match well the arbitrary default parameter that Maxent applies to map its relative output into a 0–1 scale, but errors are much larger for other species we simulate; (ii) the performance of the GLM is poorer than expected because Thibaud et al. do not use model selection and fit a model that is too complex for the amount of data available. Maxent is a presence‐background method and only provides estimates of relative suitability regardless of how the background sample is specified. When presence–absence data are available, one can transform Maxent's relative estimates into estimates of occupancy probability, and we provide methods to do so. However, this requires the user to post‐process Maxent's output. Proper PA methods such as GLMs can perform well under small sample sizes, provided care is taken during modelling to avoid overfitting. We demonstrate an effective method using regularisation with the R package glmnet.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/2041-210x.12252

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 160

Metadata

Authors
Guillera‐Arroita, G., Lahoz‐Monfort, J. J., & Elith, J.
Venue
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-09-17
Volume
5
Issue
11
Pages
1192-1197
ISSN
2041-210X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2163559576
Cited by
160
References
3
FWCI
5.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Maxent is not a presence–absence method: a comment on Thibaud et al. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/2041-210x.12252
The paper
Guillera‐Arroita, G., Lahoz‐Monfort, J. J., & Elith, J. (2014). Maxent is not a presence–absence method: a comment on Thibaud et al. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.12252

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.