Abstract:Wildlife surveys often seek to determine the presence or absence of species at sites. Such data may be used in population monitoring, impact assessment, and species– habitat analyses. An implicit assumption of presence/absence surveys is that if a species is not detected in one or more visits to a site, it is absent from that site. However, it is rarely if ever possible to be completely sure that a species is absent, and false negative observation errors may arise when detection probabilities are less than 1. The detectability of species in wildlife surveys is one of the most important sources of uncertainty in determining the proportion of a landscape that is occupied by a species. Recent studies emphasize the need to acknowledge and incorporate false negative observation error rates in the analysis of site occupancy data, although a comparative study of the range of available methods for estimating detectability and occupancy is notably absent. The motivation for this study stems from the lack of guidance in the literature about the relative merits of alternative methods for estimating detection probabilities and site occupancy proportions from presence/absence survey data. Six approaches to estimating underlying detection probabilities and the proportion of sites occupied from binary observation data are reviewed. These include three parametric methods based on binomial mixtures, one nonparametric approach based on mark–recapture theory, and two approaches based on simplistic assumptions about occupancy rates. We compare the performance of each method using simulated data for which the “true” underlying detection rate is known. Simulated data were realized from a beta‐binomial distribution, incorporating a realistic level of variation in detection rates. Estimation methods varied in their precision and bias. The “binomial‐with‐added‐zeros” mixture model, estimated by maximum likelihood, was the least biased estimator of detection probability and, therefore, occupancy rate. We provide an Excel spreadsheet to execute all of the methods reviewed. Stand‐alone programs such as PRESENCE may be used to estimate all models including the “binomial with added zeros” model. Our findings lend support to the use of maximum likelihood methods in estimating site occupancy and detectability rates.

Estimating Positive Surveys from Negative Surveys

Estimating the effects of removing negative features on engineering analysis

Improved Estimation of Population Mean Through Known Conventional and Non-Conventional Measures of Auxiliary Variable

Optimized estimation for population mean using conventional and non-conventional measures under the joint influence of measurement error and non-response

A finite-state automata based negation detection algorithm for Chinese clinical documents

Negative Sampling in Recommendation: A Survey and Future Directions

An application of negative binomial distribution of order k in sensitive surveys

Unbiased Estimation Method of the Prevalence by Negative Binomial distribution Sampling

SimANS: Simple Ambiguous Negatives Sampling for Dense Text Retrieval

Statistical Inference with Nonignorable Non-Probability Survey Samples

PRECISION AND BIAS OF METHODS FOR ESTIMATING POINT SURVEY DETECTION PROBABILITIES

Augmented Negative Sampling for Collaborative Filtering

Doubly Robust Inference with Non-probability Survey Samples

Differentially Private Finite Population Estimation via Survey Weight Regularization

ABNS: Association-based negative sampling for collaborative filtering

Estimating actual SARS-CoV-2 infections from secondary data

A Primary Study on Negative Citation in Citation Data

Semi-Supervised Screening of COVID-19 from Positive and Unlabeled Data with Constraint Non-Negative Risk Estimator

Adaptive Hardness Negative Sampling for Collaborative Filtering

Revisiting Negative Sampling Vs. Non-sampling in Implicit Recommendation

Simplify and Robustify Negative Sampling for Implicit Collaborative Filtering