Advancing predictive modeling in archaeology: An evaluation of regression and machine learning methods on the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument

Predictive models are central to both archaeological research and cultural resource management. Yet, archaeological applications of predictive models are often insufficient due to small training data sets, inadequate statistical techniques, and a lack of theoretical insight to explain the responses...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:PloS one 2020-10, Vol.15 (10), p.e0239424
Hauptverfasser: Yaworsky, Peter M, Vernon, Kenneth B, Spangler, Jerry D, Brewer, Simon C, Codding, Brian F
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 10
container_start_page e0239424
container_title PloS one
container_volume 15
creator Yaworsky, Peter M
Vernon, Kenneth B
Spangler, Jerry D
Brewer, Simon C
Codding, Brian F
description Predictive models are central to both archaeological research and cultural resource management. Yet, archaeological applications of predictive models are often insufficient due to small training data sets, inadequate statistical techniques, and a lack of theoretical insight to explain the responses of past land use to predictor variables. Here we address these critiques and evaluate the predictive power of four statistical approaches widely used in ecological modeling-generalized linear models, generalized additive models, maximum entropy, and random forests-to predict the locations of Formative Period (2100-650 BP) archaeological sites in the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. We assess each modeling approach using a threshold-independent measure, the area under the curve (AUC), and threshold-dependent measures, like the true skill statistic. We find that the majority of the modeling approaches struggle with archaeological datasets due to the frequent lack of true-absence locations, which violates model assumptions of generalized linear models, generalized additive models, and random forests, as well as measures of their predictive power (AUC). Maximum entropy is the only method tested here which is capable of utilizing pseudo-absence points (inferred absence data based on known presence data) and controlling for a non-representative sampling of the landscape, thus making maximum entropy the best modeling approach for common archaeological data when the goal is prediction. Regression-based approaches may be more applicable when prediction is not the goal, given their grounding in well-established statistical theory. Random forests, while the most powerful, is not applicable to archaeological data except in the rare case where true-absence data exist. Our results have significant implications for the application of predictive models by archaeologists for research and conservation purposes and highlight the importance of understanding model assumptions.
doi_str_mv 10.1371/journal.pone.0239424
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2447829951</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A637120955</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_0e063c6fd8944c62a4e48519660dc9e7</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A637120955</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a715t-2b4ee24f1a623fdbaa939d9c6b81c459e29aa1802d207bc30171a9c3d062ede03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk99rFDEQxxdRbK3-B6ILguDDnfmxm730QThKrYVqwaqvYS6Z3U3ZTc5k97B_iv-t2d619EBB8pBk5jPfTIaZLHtJyZzyir6_9mNw0M3X3uGcMC4LVjzKDqnkbCYY4Y8fnA-yZzFeE1LyhRBPswPOCWGEisPs99JswGnrmnwd0Fg92A3mvTfYTTbrcgi6BfSdb26O86XLcQPdCIP1Lvd1HrAJGON0A2fyHnRrHeYdQnCTQI9D603Mk39oMT8LE3U1gA0aIs5Oo4YO3ID5l1tJ6PLP3o09uuF59qSGLuKL3X6Uff94-u3k0-zi8uz8ZHkxg4qWw4ytCkRW1BQE47VZAUgujdRitaC6KCUyCUAXhBlGqpXmhFYUpOaGCIYGCT_KXm91152PalfVqFhRVAsmZUkTcb4ljIdrtQ62h3CjPFh1a_ChURAGqztUBIngWtRmIYtCCwYFFouSSiGI0RKrpPVh99q46tHo9NEA3Z7ovsfZVjV-o6qSScZFEnizEwj-54hx-EfKO6qBlJV1tU9iurdRq6VI3cOILMtEzf9CpWWwtzr1VW2TfS_g3V5AYgb8NTQwxqjOr77-P3v5Y599-4BtEbqhjb4bp5aI-2CxBXXwMQas7ytHiZrG4q4aahoLtRuLFPbqYdXvg-7mgP8Bb80Kgw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2447829951</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Advancing predictive modeling in archaeology: An evaluation of regression and machine learning methods on the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Yaworsky, Peter M ; Vernon, Kenneth B ; Spangler, Jerry D ; Brewer, Simon C ; Codding, Brian F</creator><contributor>Lozano, Sergi</contributor><creatorcontrib>Yaworsky, Peter M ; Vernon, Kenneth B ; Spangler, Jerry D ; Brewer, Simon C ; Codding, Brian F ; Lozano, Sergi</creatorcontrib><description>Predictive models are central to both archaeological research and cultural resource management. Yet, archaeological applications of predictive models are often insufficient due to small training data sets, inadequate statistical techniques, and a lack of theoretical insight to explain the responses of past land use to predictor variables. Here we address these critiques and evaluate the predictive power of four statistical approaches widely used in ecological modeling-generalized linear models, generalized additive models, maximum entropy, and random forests-to predict the locations of Formative Period (2100-650 BP) archaeological sites in the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. We assess each modeling approach using a threshold-independent measure, the area under the curve (AUC), and threshold-dependent measures, like the true skill statistic. We find that the majority of the modeling approaches struggle with archaeological datasets due to the frequent lack of true-absence locations, which violates model assumptions of generalized linear models, generalized additive models, and random forests, as well as measures of their predictive power (AUC). Maximum entropy is the only method tested here which is capable of utilizing pseudo-absence points (inferred absence data based on known presence data) and controlling for a non-representative sampling of the landscape, thus making maximum entropy the best modeling approach for common archaeological data when the goal is prediction. Regression-based approaches may be more applicable when prediction is not the goal, given their grounding in well-established statistical theory. Random forests, while the most powerful, is not applicable to archaeological data except in the rare case where true-absence data exist. Our results have significant implications for the application of predictive models by archaeologists for research and conservation purposes and highlight the importance of understanding model assumptions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239424</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33002016</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Archaeological sites ; Archaeology ; Area Under Curve ; Behavior ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Computer and Information Sciences ; Conservation ; Cultural resources ; Earth Sciences ; Ecological models ; Ecology ; Entropy ; Evaluation ; Generalized linear models ; Historic buildings &amp; sites ; Historic sites ; Land use ; Land use planning ; Learning algorithms ; Machine Learning ; Maximum entropy ; Modelling ; Models, Statistical ; National monuments ; Physical Sciences ; Power ; Prediction models ; Principal components analysis ; Regression Analysis ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Resource management ; Social Sciences ; Statistical analysis ; Statistical methods ; Statistical models ; Sustainability ; Technology application</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2020-10, Vol.15 (10), p.e0239424</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2020 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2020 Yaworsky et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2020 Yaworsky et al 2020 Yaworsky et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a715t-2b4ee24f1a623fdbaa939d9c6b81c459e29aa1802d207bc30171a9c3d062ede03</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a715t-2b4ee24f1a623fdbaa939d9c6b81c459e29aa1802d207bc30171a9c3d062ede03</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-4620-9569</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7529236/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7529236/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2102,2928,23866,27924,27925,53791,53793,79472,79473</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33002016$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Lozano, Sergi</contributor><creatorcontrib>Yaworsky, Peter M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vernon, Kenneth B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spangler, Jerry D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brewer, Simon C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Codding, Brian F</creatorcontrib><title>Advancing predictive modeling in archaeology: An evaluation of regression and machine learning methods on the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Predictive models are central to both archaeological research and cultural resource management. Yet, archaeological applications of predictive models are often insufficient due to small training data sets, inadequate statistical techniques, and a lack of theoretical insight to explain the responses of past land use to predictor variables. Here we address these critiques and evaluate the predictive power of four statistical approaches widely used in ecological modeling-generalized linear models, generalized additive models, maximum entropy, and random forests-to predict the locations of Formative Period (2100-650 BP) archaeological sites in the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. We assess each modeling approach using a threshold-independent measure, the area under the curve (AUC), and threshold-dependent measures, like the true skill statistic. We find that the majority of the modeling approaches struggle with archaeological datasets due to the frequent lack of true-absence locations, which violates model assumptions of generalized linear models, generalized additive models, and random forests, as well as measures of their predictive power (AUC). Maximum entropy is the only method tested here which is capable of utilizing pseudo-absence points (inferred absence data based on known presence data) and controlling for a non-representative sampling of the landscape, thus making maximum entropy the best modeling approach for common archaeological data when the goal is prediction. Regression-based approaches may be more applicable when prediction is not the goal, given their grounding in well-established statistical theory. Random forests, while the most powerful, is not applicable to archaeological data except in the rare case where true-absence data exist. Our results have significant implications for the application of predictive models by archaeologists for research and conservation purposes and highlight the importance of understanding model assumptions.</description><subject>Archaeological sites</subject><subject>Archaeology</subject><subject>Area Under Curve</subject><subject>Behavior</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Computer and Information Sciences</subject><subject>Conservation</subject><subject>Cultural resources</subject><subject>Earth Sciences</subject><subject>Ecological models</subject><subject>Ecology</subject><subject>Entropy</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Generalized linear models</subject><subject>Historic buildings &amp; sites</subject><subject>Historic sites</subject><subject>Land use</subject><subject>Land use planning</subject><subject>Learning algorithms</subject><subject>Machine Learning</subject><subject>Maximum entropy</subject><subject>Modelling</subject><subject>Models, Statistical</subject><subject>National monuments</subject><subject>Physical Sciences</subject><subject>Power</subject><subject>Prediction models</subject><subject>Principal components analysis</subject><subject>Regression Analysis</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Resource management</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Statistical methods</subject><subject>Statistical models</subject><subject>Sustainability</subject><subject>Technology application</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk99rFDEQxxdRbK3-B6ILguDDnfmxm730QThKrYVqwaqvYS6Z3U3ZTc5k97B_iv-t2d619EBB8pBk5jPfTIaZLHtJyZzyir6_9mNw0M3X3uGcMC4LVjzKDqnkbCYY4Y8fnA-yZzFeE1LyhRBPswPOCWGEisPs99JswGnrmnwd0Fg92A3mvTfYTTbrcgi6BfSdb26O86XLcQPdCIP1Lvd1HrAJGON0A2fyHnRrHeYdQnCTQI9D603Mk39oMT8LE3U1gA0aIs5Oo4YO3ID5l1tJ6PLP3o09uuF59qSGLuKL3X6Uff94-u3k0-zi8uz8ZHkxg4qWw4ytCkRW1BQE47VZAUgujdRitaC6KCUyCUAXhBlGqpXmhFYUpOaGCIYGCT_KXm91152PalfVqFhRVAsmZUkTcb4ljIdrtQ62h3CjPFh1a_ChURAGqztUBIngWtRmIYtCCwYFFouSSiGI0RKrpPVh99q46tHo9NEA3Z7ovsfZVjV-o6qSScZFEnizEwj-54hx-EfKO6qBlJV1tU9iurdRq6VI3cOILMtEzf9CpWWwtzr1VW2TfS_g3V5AYgb8NTQwxqjOr77-P3v5Y599-4BtEbqhjb4bp5aI-2CxBXXwMQas7ytHiZrG4q4aahoLtRuLFPbqYdXvg-7mgP8Bb80Kgw</recordid><startdate>20201001</startdate><enddate>20201001</enddate><creator>Yaworsky, Peter M</creator><creator>Vernon, Kenneth B</creator><creator>Spangler, Jerry D</creator><creator>Brewer, Simon C</creator><creator>Codding, Brian F</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4620-9569</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20201001</creationdate><title>Advancing predictive modeling in archaeology: An evaluation of regression and machine learning methods on the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument</title><author>Yaworsky, Peter M ; Vernon, Kenneth B ; Spangler, Jerry D ; Brewer, Simon C ; Codding, Brian F</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a715t-2b4ee24f1a623fdbaa939d9c6b81c459e29aa1802d207bc30171a9c3d062ede03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Archaeological sites</topic><topic>Archaeology</topic><topic>Area Under Curve</topic><topic>Behavior</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Computer and Information Sciences</topic><topic>Conservation</topic><topic>Cultural resources</topic><topic>Earth Sciences</topic><topic>Ecological models</topic><topic>Ecology</topic><topic>Entropy</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Generalized linear models</topic><topic>Historic buildings &amp; sites</topic><topic>Historic sites</topic><topic>Land use</topic><topic>Land use planning</topic><topic>Learning algorithms</topic><topic>Machine Learning</topic><topic>Maximum entropy</topic><topic>Modelling</topic><topic>Models, Statistical</topic><topic>National monuments</topic><topic>Physical Sciences</topic><topic>Power</topic><topic>Prediction models</topic><topic>Principal components analysis</topic><topic>Regression Analysis</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Resource management</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Statistical methods</topic><topic>Statistical models</topic><topic>Sustainability</topic><topic>Technology application</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Yaworsky, Peter M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vernon, Kenneth B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spangler, Jerry D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brewer, Simon C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Codding, Brian F</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Proquest Nursing &amp; Allied Health Source</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Yaworsky, Peter M</au><au>Vernon, Kenneth B</au><au>Spangler, Jerry D</au><au>Brewer, Simon C</au><au>Codding, Brian F</au><au>Lozano, Sergi</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Advancing predictive modeling in archaeology: An evaluation of regression and machine learning methods on the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2020-10-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>e0239424</spage><pages>e0239424-</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Predictive models are central to both archaeological research and cultural resource management. Yet, archaeological applications of predictive models are often insufficient due to small training data sets, inadequate statistical techniques, and a lack of theoretical insight to explain the responses of past land use to predictor variables. Here we address these critiques and evaluate the predictive power of four statistical approaches widely used in ecological modeling-generalized linear models, generalized additive models, maximum entropy, and random forests-to predict the locations of Formative Period (2100-650 BP) archaeological sites in the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. We assess each modeling approach using a threshold-independent measure, the area under the curve (AUC), and threshold-dependent measures, like the true skill statistic. We find that the majority of the modeling approaches struggle with archaeological datasets due to the frequent lack of true-absence locations, which violates model assumptions of generalized linear models, generalized additive models, and random forests, as well as measures of their predictive power (AUC). Maximum entropy is the only method tested here which is capable of utilizing pseudo-absence points (inferred absence data based on known presence data) and controlling for a non-representative sampling of the landscape, thus making maximum entropy the best modeling approach for common archaeological data when the goal is prediction. Regression-based approaches may be more applicable when prediction is not the goal, given their grounding in well-established statistical theory. Random forests, while the most powerful, is not applicable to archaeological data except in the rare case where true-absence data exist. Our results have significant implications for the application of predictive models by archaeologists for research and conservation purposes and highlight the importance of understanding model assumptions.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>33002016</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0239424</doi><tpages>e0239424</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4620-9569</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1932-6203
ispartof PloS one, 2020-10, Vol.15 (10), p.e0239424
issn 1932-6203
1932-6203
language eng
recordid cdi_plos_journals_2447829951
source MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS); EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry
subjects Archaeological sites
Archaeology
Area Under Curve
Behavior
Biology and Life Sciences
Computer and Information Sciences
Conservation
Cultural resources
Earth Sciences
Ecological models
Ecology
Entropy
Evaluation
Generalized linear models
Historic buildings & sites
Historic sites
Land use
Land use planning
Learning algorithms
Machine Learning
Maximum entropy
Modelling
Models, Statistical
National monuments
Physical Sciences
Power
Prediction models
Principal components analysis
Regression Analysis
Research and Analysis Methods
Resource management
Social Sciences
Statistical analysis
Statistical methods
Statistical models
Sustainability
Technology application
title Advancing predictive modeling in archaeology: An evaluation of regression and machine learning methods on the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T21%3A11%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Advancing%20predictive%20modeling%20in%20archaeology:%20An%20evaluation%20of%20regression%20and%20machine%20learning%20methods%20on%20the%20Grand%20Staircase-Escalante%20National%20Monument&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Yaworsky,%20Peter%20M&rft.date=2020-10-01&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=e0239424&rft.pages=e0239424-&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0239424&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA637120955%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2447829951&rft_id=info:pmid/33002016&rft_galeid=A637120955&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_0e063c6fd8944c62a4e48519660dc9e7&rfr_iscdi=true