Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 67 references

Joint species distribution modeling of abundance data through latent variable barcodes

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Six latent drivers, learned from 132 bird count series, organize Finland's avian communities into interpretable habitat and climate regions.

desk verdict A genuinely useful extension of concurrent ordination with binary barcodes and an honest ecological application; the main caveats are fixable sampler typos and the interpretive nature of the factor labels. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08793 v2 pith:IICOTSO2 submitted 2024-12-11 stat.AP

Braden Scherting , Otso Ovaskainen , David B. Dunson This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.AP
keywords jointspeciesdistributionmodelingabundancedatabinarylatentvariablesordinationclusteringPoissonfactorizationFinnishbirdsenvironmentaldrivers
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that the joint structure of a large survey of Finnish bird abundances can be captured by a small set of latent drivers, each encoded as a binary on/off switch for a site and a binary preference for a species, with continuous strengths attached to both. The authors introduce barcode (binary and real count decomposition), a Bayesian Poisson factorization that learns six interpretable drivers: three climatic and forest-type gradients splitting southern mixed forest, northern old-growth forest, and intervening pine forest, plus three spatially patchy factors matching urban, agricultural, and wetland habitats. Because sample and species switches are learned together, the same model simultaneously ordinates sites, clusters species by shared preferences, and regresses factor presence on covariates and location. This gives ecologists a community-level view of what drives abundance patterns jointly, and the authors report that barcode predicts out-of-sample counts without the extreme outliers produced by standard log-linear joint species distribution models.

What carries the argument

The central object is a sparse additive Poisson factorization in which the expected count for sample i and species j is $\mu_{ij} = \sum_{l=1}^L (c_{il}\phi_{il})(s_{jl}\gamma_{jl})$, with each factor split into a binary switch ($c_{il}$ for sample presence, $s_{jl}$ for species preference) and a continuous strength ($\phi_{il}$, $\gamma_{jl}$). A constant reference factor fixes the baseline abundance, and a Dirichlet-style normalization fixes each factor's scale. Sample switches are driven by a probit regression on 21 covariates plus a Gaussian-process spatial effect, while species switches share a $\beta$ prior. The same additive structure is exploited in a Gibbs sampler through Poisson-multinomial augmentation, splitting each observed count into factor-specific latent counts. This machinery is what yields exact sparsity, automatic clustering via distinct binary codes, interpretable covariate and spatial regression, and stable out-of-sample predictions.

What would settle it

A decisive check would be to refit barcode on the same Finnish data with zeros treated as uncertain, for example through a hierarchical occupancy-style model that allows missed detections, and compare the factor maps and species clusters; if those maps change materially, the six-driver story depends on the true-zero assumption. A complementary empirical check would use the Finnish sites revisited in multiple years to test whether a species' barcode preference predicts its local detection probability.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a complement of six factors, or ordination axes, reflects the dominant drivers of community structure in Finnish bird abundance data, and that these factors can be related to geography, climate, and habitat. Three factors correspond to distinct climatic regions dominated by different forest types, and three further factors are spatially heterogeneous and signal urban, agricultural, and wetland areas. The same fitted model yields clusters of species based on their binary preference profiles, identifies specialists such as urban and coastal birds and northern old-growth or fjell and wetland birds, and produces a map of Finland partitioned into regions of common avian profile. The factors are largely stable across the 2006–2016 study period. On out-of-sample prediction, barcode with seven factors achieves an average RMSE of 3.76, compared with 47.95 for a Poisson generalized linear latent variable model and 4392.19 for a negative-binomial version, because the additive structure avoids the extreme predictions of log-scale models.

Load-bearing premise

The model takes every zero count as a true absence: it has no detection-error process, so if observers systematically miss species in some habitats, the six inferred drivers may partly reflect where birds are harder to see rather than where they are absent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the model is right, ecologists can treat the six learned factors as the dominant environmental filters for Finnish birds: three climatic and forest gradients separating southern mixed forest, northern old growth, and intermediate pine forest, plus urban, agricultural, and wetland factors.
  • Species can be clustered by their binary preference vectors, producing 56 occupied barcode clusters, 25 of them single-species, and these clusters line up with known habitat-preference pairs such as urban and agricultural or northern old growth and fjell and wetland.
  • The drivers are mostly stable at a site across years, with 91–100% site-level switch fidelity for most factors, suggesting that the inferred structure reflects persistent habitat and climate rather than transient sampling noise; the agricultural factor is the least stable.
  • barcode avoids the out-of-sample blow-up of log-linear GLLVMs: with seven factors its cross-validated RMSE is 3.76 versus 47.95 for the Poisson GLLVM and 4392.19 for the negative-binomial GLLVM, while still matching their fit to the joint distribution.
  • Because the same fitted model provides ordination, clustering, covariate regression, and spatial prediction, it can be used to propose regions of common avian profile and to guide both broad regional and targeted local conservation planning.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the zero-as-true-zero assumption means the model likely underestimates the spatial extent of rare or hard-to-detect species, and a detection-aware extension could shift the boundaries of the northern old-growth and fjell and wetland factors, which are near the survey's geographic edge.
  • Editorial inference: the barcode representation could be reused as an indicator-species selection tool, with species occupying single-factor barcodes serving as candidate specialists for monitoring and species with long reference loadings serving as generalists.
  • Editorial inference: because factor presence is regressed on covariates and location, the same decomposition could be applied to other structured citizen-science count data with extreme zeros and large counts, without changing the core model.
  • Editorial inference: if the temporal stability result generalizes, barcode factors could be used to detect when a community's dominant drivers change by fitting the model over time windows and comparing factor identities; the paper notes a tensor-factorization extension for stronger temporal dynamics.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes 'barcode', a Bayesian Poisson matrix factorization for multivariate abundance data in which each sample- and species-level factor is decomposed into a binary switch and a continuous strength. Covariates and a spatial Gaussian process enter through a probit model for the sample switches, yielding simultaneous ordination, species/sample clustering via binary barcodes, and reduced-rank regression. The method is applied to 11 years of Finnish bird line-transect counts for 132 species, identifying six non-reference factors interpreted as urban, agricultural, southern mixed forest, pine, northern old-growth, and fjell/wetland drivers, and producing species clusters and regional maps. Validation includes simulations for recovery of the latent variables and regression coefficients, posterior predictive checks, and three-fold cross-validation comparing barcode with Poisson and negative-binomial GLLVMs.

Significance. The barcode model is a useful and original synthesis of sparse nonnegative Poisson factorization with hierarchical covariate and spatial structure. Its binary switches give an interpretable clustering mechanism without a separate mixture specification, and the application to a substantial Finnish bird dataset addresses genuinely ecological questions. If the technical issues are fixed, the framework should be of interest to ecologists and to statisticians working on joint species distribution models. The paper is commendable for releasing code and data, for reporting convergence diagnostics, and for explicitly acknowledging limitations such as imperfect detection, temporal variation, and overdispersion. The simulations and posterior predictive checks are sensible and partially validate the inferential machinery.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (3); Section 3.4, Steps 1–2] The printed model and sampler are internally inconsistent. Eq. (3) defines Pr(c_il=1) as Phi^{-1}(x_i^T beta_l + xi_l(s_{k_i})), and Steps 1–2 of Section 3.4 repeat the same quantile-function notation. Since Phi^{-1} returns real values, this is not a valid probability; moreover, with Gaussian priors on beta and a GP on xi, the argument is not restricted to [0,1]. The intended form is presumably Pr(c_il=1)=Phi(eta_il). In addition, the prior odds in Step 1 are reversed: because Pr(s_jl=1)=psi, the posterior proportionality should use (1-psi) for s_jl=0 and psi for s_jl=1, whereas the paper prints the opposite. Step 2 also incorrectly includes psi in the update for c_il and uses a product over i where the product should be over j=1,...,p. These are load-bearing issues: the Gibbs sampler as written cannot be implemented correctly. Please correct all of these equations and confirm that they match the released code.
  2. [Section 4; Section 3.3; Supplement A.2] The central applied claim—that six factors are identified and labeled Urban, Agriculture, S. Mixed Forest, Pine, N. Old Growth, and Fjell+Wetland—rests on post hoc visual and covariate-based interpretation of unconstrained latent factors. The simulations validate recovery of C, S, and B for the generative model, but they do not test whether factor labels are stable under refits or correspond to known causal drivers. The model is non-identified up to label switching (Section 3.3), and although the authors state that label switching was not observed, no quantitative check is reported. I request a label-stability analysis: refit with different ranks, initializations, or data subsets; match factors across fits; and report the fraction of sites and species whose assigned labels change. The little bunting example in Section 4, where a factor-6 specialist is described as actually breeding in open peatlands and agricultural environments, illustrates that the 'N. Old Growth' label may be more climatic than forest-type; the labels should be presented as interpretive hypotheses unless further evidence is supplied.
  3. [Sections 2 and 5] The model treats observed zeros as true zeros, but 72% of records are zero and the data are volunteer line-transect counts with imperfect detection. Because factor presence probabilities are estimated from counts, systematic detection errors can be absorbed into factor occurrence and species preference estimates, directly affecting the maps and ecological labels in Section 4. The paper acknowledges this limitation in Section 5, but it does not assess the consequences for the central conclusions. I suggest a sensitivity analysis, for example simulating counts under a simple detection-error model and checking whether the six-factor structure and labels are preserved, or fitting an occupancy-style extension for a subset of species. Without such an analysis, the claim in Section 2 that community-level inference lends robustness to detection error is not demonstrated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The word 'climactic' should be 'climatic' in the abstract and anywhere else it appears.
  2. [Section 2] The statement that each survey recorded '40 willow warblers and 0.03 ospreys' should explicitly say 'per survey' to avoid ambiguity about the units.
  3. [Section 1] 'A complement of six factors' should be 'A set of six factors' or 'Six factors'; 'complement' is not the intended word.
  4. [Section 4, cross-validation paragraph] The RMSE comparison with Poisson and NB GLLVMs is hard to interpret because RMSE is dominated by extreme counts and the rule filtering out predictions 'at least one order of magnitude greater than all data' is post hoc and not applied to barcode. A proper scoring rule, such as predictive log-density or CRPS, or a prespecified threshold, would make the comparison more convincing.
  5. [Supplement A.4] The sentence 'A candidate ˆci (ˆsj induces ...' has an unclosed parenthesis; this should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the model is fit from data with explicit priors, recovery is checked by simulation, and factor labels are post hoc interpretations rather than inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The abundance model in Section 3.1 defines mu_ij as a product of latent sample factors and species preferences with explicit priors; the factor-presence probit in Eq. (3) is a prior model for the binary switches, not a constraint that pre-assigns ecological labels. The six 'drivers' are estimated from the data, and the ecological names (Urban, Agriculture, etc.) are assigned in Section 4 after fitting, by inspecting factor-presence maps, covariate-effect summaries, and species specializations. The paper explicitly cautions that 'Estimated covariate effects on each factor should be interpreted as a summary of the typical sample or site where the factor is present' (Section 4), which is an honest interpretive step rather than a circular derivation. Recovery of the latent variables C, S, and regression coefficients B is checked in Supplement A.2 by simulating from the model and refitting, an external self-consistency check. Cross-validation in Section 4 compares out-of-sample RMSE with GLLVMs and is a genuine predictive evaluation. Self-citations (Gu and Dunson 2023; Zhou et al. 2024; Poworoznek et al. 2021; Lee and Gu 2024) are used as background motivation, computational tools, or post-processing alignment; none is invoked as the source of the central conclusion that six factors explain the Finnish bird community. The acknowledged limitation that observed zeros are treated as true zeros (Section 5) affects ecological inference but is not a circularity. No equation in the paper reduces a predicted quantity to a fitted input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central results rest on a standard factor model plus three domain assumptions: conditional Poisson independence, zeros as true zeros, and count-detectability equivalence. The model also relies on hand-set hyperparameters and a data-dependent GP length-scale.

free parameters (4)
  • Factorization rank L = 7
    Chosen to balance fit and interpretability; robustness checked with L=5,6,7,8 in Supplement A.1.
  • Gaussian process length-scale = Effective range approximately equal to 5% quantile of observed distances
    Hand-chosen data-dependent spatial smoothing parameter in Section 3.2; affects the spatial factor presence surfaces.
  • Factor strength Dirichlet concentration alpha = 1
    Set in Section 3.1; governs spread of factor intensities across samples; authors state alpha=1 performs well.
  • Preference prior hyperparameters a_gamma, a_nu, b_nu = 0.5 each
    Set in Section 3.1 as flexible priors; not fitted to data but hand-chosen.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Conditional Poisson independence: y_ij | mu_ij ~ Pois(mu_ij) independently across samples and species.
    Section 3.1; standard in factor models but ignores extra overdispersion and detection error.
  • domain assumption Observed zeros are true zeros; no detection or misidentification process is modeled.
    Section 5 explicitly acknowledges this limitation; with 72% zeros it shapes factor inference.
  • domain assumption Line transect counts reflect relative abundance; detectability differences across species are small enough to be ignored at community level.
    Section 2 states this assumption and argues community-level focus lends robustness.
  • domain assumption Factor presence follows a probit regression with a site-level Gaussian process using an exponential kernel; GP length-scale is fixed.
    Section 3.2; a functional form chosen by the authors, not derived from ecological theory.
  • standard math Poisson additive property and multinomial augmentation used in the Gibbs sampler are valid.
    Standard results from Poisson process theory, used in Section 3.4.
  • domain assumption Binary latent switches are identifiable up to permutation under this model, relying on identifiability results for related latent class models.
    The paper cites Gu and Dunson (2023) and Lee and Gu (2024) but does not prove identifiability for this specific factorization.
invented entities (1)
  • Latent binary and continuous factors (C, Phi, S, Gamma) with barcode structure
    purpose: Represent unobserved environmental gradients and species preferences; induce clustering via binary barcodes.
    They are inferred rather than observed; simulation recovery is under the model itself, and ecological labels are assigned post hoc.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Joint species distribution modeling of abundance data through latent variable barcodes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IICOTSO2

@misc{pith2026241208793,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Joint species distribution modeling of abundance data through latent variable barcodes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IICOTSO2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08793}
}
read the original abstract

Accelerating global biodiversity loss has highlighted the role of complex relationships and shared patterns among species in determining their responses to environmental changes. The structure of an ecological community, represented by patterns of dependence among constituent species, signals its robustness more than individual species distributions. We focus on obtaining community-level insights based on underlying patterns in abundances of bird species in Finland. We propose \texttt{barcode}, a modeling framework to infer latent binary and continuous features of samples and species, expanding the class of concurrent ordinations. This approach introduces covariates and spatial autocorrelation hierarchically to facilitate ecological interpretations of the learned features. By analyzing 132 bird species counts, we infer the dominant environmental drivers of the community, species clusters and regions of common profile. Three of the learned drivers correspond to distinct climactic regions with different dominant forest types. Three further drivers are spatially heterogeneous and signal urban, agricultural, and wetland areas, respectively.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08793 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Factor presence and strength overlaid on the map of Finland. Sampling sites are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Effects of covariates on binary sample factors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Relative cumulative factor strengths in each year of the study. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Species profiles clustered by preference and segmented by preference strength. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Regions of Finland sharing common avian community profiles. Points are colored [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. P. Ahola, T. Laaksonen, T. Eeva, and E. Lehikoinen. Climate change can alter competitive relationships between resident and migratory birds. Journal of Animal Ecology, 76 0 (6): 0 1045--1052, 2007

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    J. H. Albert and S. Chib. Bayesian analysis of binary and polychotomous response data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 88 0 (422): 0 669--679, 1993

    1993

  3. [3]

    Basbug and B

    M. Basbug and B. Engelhardt. Hierarchical compound P oisson factorization. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1795--1803. PMLR, 2016

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    B \"u chi and S

    L. B \"u chi and S. Vuilleumier. Coexistence of specialist and generalist species is shaped by dispersal and environmental factors. The American Naturalist, 183 0 (5): 0 612--624, 2014

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Carignan and M.-A

    V. Carignan and M.-A. Villard. Selecting indicator species to monitor ecological integrity: a review. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 78 0 (1): 0 45--61, 2002

    work page 2002

  6. [6]

    C. M. Carvalho, J. Chang, J. E. Lucas, J. R. Nevins, Q. Wang, and M. West. High-dimensional sparse factor modeling: applications in gene expression genomics. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 103 0 (484): 0 1438--1456, 2008

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    A. T. Cemgil. Bayesian inference for nonnegative matrix factorisation models. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, 2009 0 (1): 0 785152, 2009

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    J. M. Chase and M. A. Leibold. Ecological Niches: Linking Classical and Contemporary Approaches . University of Chicago Press, 2009

    work page 2009

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    D. Cortes. Fast non- B ayesian P oisson factorization for implicit-feedback recommendations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.01908, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Davies and M

    P. Davies and M. K. Tso. Procedures for reduced-rank regression. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C: Applied Statistics, 31 0 (3): 0 244--255, 1982

    1982

  3. [11]

    Dellaportas, J

    P. Dellaportas, J. J. Forster, and I. Ntzoufras. On B ayesian model and variable selection using MCMC . Statistics and Computing, 12 0 (1): 0 27--36, 2002

    2002

  4. [12]

    Devictor, R

    V. Devictor, R. Julliard, and F. Jiguet. Distribution of specialist and generalist species along spatial gradients of habitat disturbance and fragmentation. Oikos, 117 0 (4): 0 507--514, 2008

    2008

  5. [13]

    D. B. Dunson and A. H. Herring. Bayesian latent variable models for mixed discrete outcomes. Biostatistics, 6 0 (1): 0 11--25, 2005

    2005

  6. [14]

    P. K. Dunstan, S. D. Foster, and R. Darnell. Model based grouping of species across environmental gradients. Ecological Modelling, 222 0 (4): 0 955--963, 2011

    2011

  7. [15]

    E. K. Engelhardt, E. L. Neuschulz, and C. Hof. Ignoring biotic interactions overestimates climate change effects: The potential response of the spotted nutcracker to changes in climate and resource plants. Journal of Biogeography, 47 0 (1): 0 143--154, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    J. J. Forster. Bayesian inference for Poisson and multinomial log-linear models. Statistical Methodology, 7 0 (3): 0 210--224, 2010

    2010

  9. [17]

    Foster, G

    S. Foster, G. Givens, G. Dornan, P. Dunstan, and R. Darnell. Modelling biological regions from multi-species and environmental data. Environmetrics, 24 0 (7): 0 489--499, 2013

    2013

  10. [18]

    Fr \"u hwirth-Schnatter

    S. Fr \"u hwirth-Schnatter. Generalized cumulative shrinkage process priors with applications to sparse Bayesian factor analysis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 381 0 (2247): 0 20220148, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Gaujoux and C

    R. Gaujoux and C. Seoighe. A flexible R package for nonnegative matrix factorization. BMC Bioinformatics, 11: 0 1--9, 2010

    2010

  12. [20]

    Gelman and D

    A. Gelman and D. B. Rubin. Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statistical Science, 7 0 (4): 0 457--472, 1992

    1992

  13. [21]

    Gopalan, J

    P. Gopalan, J. M. Hofman, and D. M. Blei. Scalable Recommendation with Hierarchical Poisson Factorization . In UAI, pages 326--335, 2015

    2015

  14. [22]

    J. C. Gower. Some distance properties of latent root and vector methods used in multivariate analysis. Biometrika, 53 0 (3-4): 0 325--338, 1966

    1966

  15. [23]

    Gu and D

    Y. Gu and D. B. Dunson. Bayesian pyramids: Identifiable multilayer discrete latent structure models for discrete data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 85 0 (2): 0 399--426, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Hoegh and D

    A. Hoegh and D. W. Roberts. Evaluating and presenting uncertainty in model-based unconstrained ordination. Ecology and Evolution, 10 0 (1): 0 59--69, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    F. K. Hui. Model-based simultaneous clustering and ordination of multivariate abundance data in ecology. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 105: 0 1--10, 2017

    2017

  18. [26]

    F. K. Hui, S. Taskinen, S. Pledger, S. D. Foster, and D. I. Warton. Model-based approaches to unconstrained ordination. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 6 0 (4): 0 399--411, 2015

    2015

  19. [27]

    Kim and H

    J. Kim and H. Park. Sparse nonnegative matrix factorization for clustering. Technical report, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2008

    2008

  20. [28]

    M. D. Koslovsky. A B ayesian zero-inflated D irichlet-multinomial regression model for multivariate compositional count data. Biometrics, 79 0 (4): 0 3239--3251, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    N. J. Kraft, P. B. Adler, O. Godoy, E. C. James, S. Fuller, and J. M. Levine. Community assembly, coexistence and the environmental filtering metaphor. Functional Ecology, 29 0 (5): 0 592--599, 2015

    2015

  22. [30]

    J. B. Kruskal. Multidimensional scaling. Murry Hill, 1978

    1978

  23. [31]

    J. J. Lahoz-Monfort, G. Guillera-Arroita, and B. A. Wintle. Imperfect detection impacts the performance of species distribution models. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 23 0 (4): 0 504--515, 2014

    2014

  24. [32]

    A. Lal, K. Liu, R. Tibshirani, A. Sidow, and D. Ramazzotti. De novo mutational signature discovery in tumor genomes using SparseSignatures . PLoS Computational Biology, 17 0 (6): 0 e1009119, 2021

    2021

  25. [33]

    A. N. Langville, C. D. Meyer, R. Albright, J. Cox, and D. Duling. Initializations for the nonnegative matrix factorization. In Proceedings of the twelfth ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 23--26. Citeseer, 2006

    2006

  26. [34]

    Lee and Y

    S. Lee and Y. Gu. New paradigm of identifiable general-response cognitive diagnostic models: beyond categorical data. Psychometrika, 89: 0 1--33, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Legendre and L

    P. Legendre and L. Legendre. Numerical Ecology . Elsevier, 2012

    2012

  28. [36]

    Legramanti, D

    S. Legramanti, D. Durante, and D. B. Dunson. Bayesian cumulative shrinkage for infinite factorizations. Biometrika, 107 0 (3): 0 745--752, 2020

    2020

  29. [37]

    Lehikoinen, M

    A. Lehikoinen, M. Green, M. Husby, J. A. K l s, and . Lindstr \"o m. Common montane birds are declining in northern E urope. Journal of Avian Biology, 45 0 (1): 0 3--14, 2014

    2014

  30. [38]

    Leito, M

    A. Leito, M. Leivits, A. Leivits, J. Raet, R. Ward, I. Ott, H. Tullus, R. Rosenvald, K. Kimmel, and K. Sepp. Black-headed gull ( L arus ridibundus L .) as a keystone species in the lake bird community in primary forest-mire-lake ecosystem. Baltic Forestry, 22 0 (1): 0 34--45, 2016

    2016

  31. [39]

    Green, M

    Lindstr \"o m, M. Green, M. Husby, J. A. K l s, and A. Lehikoinen. Large-scale monitoring of waders on their boreal and arctic breeding grounds in northern E urope. Ardea, 103 0 (1): 0 3--15, 2015

    2015

  32. [40]

    Green, M

    Lindstr \"o m, M. Green, M. Husby, J. A. K l s, A. Lehikoinen, M. Stjernman, et al. Population trends of waders on their boreal and arctic breeding grounds in northern E urope. Wader Study, 126 0 (3): 0 200--216, 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    I. J. Lovette and W. M. Hochachka. Simultaneous effects of phylogenetic niche conservatism and competition on avian community structure. Ecology, 87 0 (sp7): 0 S14--S28, 2006

    2006

  34. [42]

    E. C. Merkle, D. Furr, and S. Rabe-Hesketh. Bayesian comparison of latent variable models: Conditional versus marginal likelihoods. Psychometrika, 84: 0 802--829, 2019

    2019

  35. [43]

    Monti, O

    F. Monti, O. Duriez, V. Arnal, J.-M. Dominici, A. Sforzi, L. Fusani, D. Gr \'e millet, and C. Montgelard. Being cosmopolitan: evolutionary history and phylogeography of a specialized raptor, the Osprey Pandion haliaetus . BMC Evolutionary Biology, 15: 0 1--15, 2015

    2015

  36. [44]

    J. Niku, F. K. Hui, S. Taskinen, and D. I. Warton. gllvm : Fast analysis of multivariate abundance data with generalized linear latent variable models in R . Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 10 0 (12): 0 2173--2182, 2019

    2019

  37. [45]

    Ovaskainen, G

    O. Ovaskainen, G. Tikhonov, A. Norberg, F. Guillaume Blanchet, L. Duan, D. Dunson, T. Roslin, and N. Abrego. How to make more out of community data? A conceptual framework and its implementation as models and software. Ecology Letters, 20 0 (5): 0 561--576, 2017

    2017

  38. [46]

    Piirainen, A

    S. Piirainen, A. Lehikoinen, M. Husby, J. A. K l s, . Lindstr \"o m, and O. Ovaskainen. Species distributions models may predict accurately future distributions but poorly how distributions change: A critical perspective on model validation. Diversity and Distributions, 29 0 (...

    2023

  39. [47]

    Poworoznek, N

    E. Poworoznek, N. Anceschi, F. Ferrari, and D. Dunson. Efficiently resolving rotational ambiguity in Bayesian matrix sampling with matching. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.13783, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  40. [48]

    F. W. Preston. The commonness, and rarity, of species. Ecology, 29 0 (3): 0 254--283, 1948

    1948

  41. [49]

    J. A. Royle, J. D. Nichols, and M. K \'e ry. Modelling occurrence and abundance of species when detection is imperfect. Oikos, 110 0 (2): 0 353--359, 2005

    2005

  42. [50]

    Schein, J

    A. Schein, J. Paisley, D. M. Blei, and H. Wallach. Inferring polyadic events with Poisson tensor factorization. In Proceedings of the NIPS 2014 Workshop on” Networks: From Graphs to Rich Data, 2014

    2014

  43. [51]

    Sk \'o rka, R

    P. Sk \'o rka, R. Martyka, J. D. W \'o jcik, and M. Lenda. An invasive gull displaces native waterbirds to breeding habitats more exposed to native predators. Population Ecology, 56: 0 359--374, 2014

    2014

  44. [52]

    Skrondal and S

    A. Skrondal and S. Rabe-Hesketh. Generalized latent variable modeling: Multilevel , longitudinal, and structural equation models . Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2004

    2004

  45. [53]

    Steenweg, M

    R. Steenweg, M. Hebblewhite, J. Whittington, and K. McKelvey. Species-specific differences in detection and occupancy probabilities help drive ability to detect trends in occupancy. Ecosphere, 10 0 (4): 0 e02639, 2019

    2019

  46. [54]

    Stratton, A

    C. Stratton, A. Hoegh, T. J. Rodhouse, J. L. Green, K. M. Banner, and K. M. Irvine. Clustering and unconstrained ordination with D irichlet process mixture models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 15 0 (9): 0 1720--1732, 2024

    2024

  47. [55]

    C. J. Ter Braak and I. C. Prentice. A theory of gradient analysis. Advances in Ecological Research, 18: 0 271--317, 1988

    1988

  48. [56]

    D. Tilman. Resource Competition and Community Structure . Number 17. Princeton University Press, 1982

    1982

  49. [57]

    van der Veen, F

    B. van der Veen, F. K. Hui, K. A. Hovstad, and R. B. O'Hara. Concurrent ordination: Simultaneous unconstrained and constrained latent variable modelling. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 14 0 (2): 0 683--695, 2023

    2023

  50. [58]

    Vehtari, A

    A. Vehtari, A. Gelman, and J. Gabry. Practical Bayesian model evaluation using leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC . Statistics and Computing, 27: 0 1413--1432, 2017

    2017

  51. [59]

    Wang and Y.-J

    Y.-X. Wang and Y.-J. Zhang. Nonnegative matrix factorization: A comprehensive review. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 25 0 (6): 0 1336--1353, 2012

    2012

  52. [60]

    D. I. Warton, F. G. Blanchet, R. B. O’Hara, O. Ovaskainen, S. Taskinen, S. C. Walker, and F. K. Hui. So many variables: joint modeling in community ecology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 30 0 (12): 0 766--779, 2015

    2015

  53. [61]

    G. A. Watterson. Models for the logarithmic species abundance distributions. Theoretical Population Biology, 6 0 (2): 0 217--250, 1974

    1974

  54. [62]

    Weiher, D

    E. Weiher, D. Freund, T. Bunton, A. Stefanski, T. Lee, and S. Bentivenga. Advances, challenges and a developing synthesis of ecological community assembly theory. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366 0 (1576): 0 2403--2413, 2011

    2011

  55. [63]

    T. W. Yee and T. J. Hastie. Reduced-rank vector generalized linear models. Statistical Modelling, 3 0 (1): 0 15--41, 2003

    2003

  56. [64]

    Yoo and S

    J. Yoo and S. Choi. Probabilistic matrix tri-factorization. In 2009 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, pages 1553--1556. IEEE, 2009

    2009

  57. [65]

    M. Zhou. Infinite Edge Partition Models for Overlapping Community Detection and Link Prediction . In G. Lebanon and S. V. N. Vishwanathan, editors, Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, volume 38 of Proceedings of Mac...

    2015

  58. [66]

    Y. Zhou, Y. Gu, and D. B. Dunson. Bayesian Deep Generative Models for Replicated Networks with Multiscale Overlapping Clusters . arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.20936, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Zito and J

    A. Zito and J. W. Miller. Compressive B ayesian non-negative matrix factorization for mutational signatures analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.10974, 2024

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.