Modelling heterogeneity in the classification process in multi-species distribution models can improve predictive performance.

Species distribution models and maps from large-scale biodiversity data are necessary for conservation management. One current issue is that biodiversity data are prone to taxonomic misclassifications. Methods to account for these misclassifications in multi-species distribution models have assumed that the classification probabilities are constant throughout the study. In reality, classification probabilities are likely to vary with several covariates. Failure to account for such heterogeneity can lead to biased prediction of species distributions. Here, we present a general multi-species distribution model that accounts for heterogeneity in the classification process. The proposed model assumes a multinomial generalised linear model for the classification confusion matrix. We compare the performance of the heterogeneous classification model to that of the homogeneous classification model by assessing how well they estimate the parameters in the model and their predictive performance on hold-out samples. We applied the model to gull data from Norway, Denmark and Finland, obtained from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility. Our simulation study showed that accounting for heterogeneity in the classification process increased the precision of true species' identity predictions by 30% and accuracy and recall by 6%. Since all the models in this study accounted for misclassification of some sort, there was no significant effect of accounting for heterogeneity in the classification process on the inference about the ecological process. Applying the model framework to the gull dataset did not improve the predictive performance between the homogeneous and heterogeneous models (with parametric distributions) due to the smaller misclassified sample sizes. However, when machine learning predictive scores were used as weights to inform the species distribution models about the classification process, the precision increased by 70%. We recommend multiple multinomial regression to be used to model the variation in the classification process when the data contains relatively larger misclassified samples. Machine learning prediction scores should be used when the data contains relatively smaller misclassified samples.

Insights into the quantification and reporting of model-related uncertainty across different disciplines.

Quantifying uncertainty associated with our models is the only way we can express how much we know about any phenomenon. Incomplete consideration of model-based uncertainties can lead to overstated conclusions with real-world impacts in diverse spheres, including conservation, epidemiology, climate science, and policy. Despite these potentially damaging consequences, we still know little about how different fields quantify and report uncertainty. We introduce the "sources of uncertainty" framework, using it to conduct a systematic audit of model-related uncertainty quantification from seven scientific fields, spanning the biological, physical, and political sciences. Our interdisciplinary audit shows no field fully considers all possible sources of uncertainty, but each has its own best practices alongside shared outstanding challenges. We make ten easy-to-implement recommendations to improve the consistency, completeness, and clarity of reporting on model-related uncertainty. These recommendations serve as a guide to best practices across scientific fields and expand our toolbox for high-quality research.