Environmental and Ecological Statistics

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 715–731

Finite area smoothing with generalized distance splines

Article

Abstract

Most conventional spatial smoothers smooth with respect to the Euclidean distance between observations, even though this distance may not be a meaningful measure of spatial proximity, especially when boundary features are present. When domains have complicated boundaries leakage (the inappropriate linking of parts of the domain which are separated by physical barriers) can occur. To overcome this problem, we develop a method of smoothing with respect to generalized distances, such as within domain distances. We obtain the generalized distances between our points and then use multidimensional scaling to find a configuration of our observations in a Euclidean space of 2 or more dimensions, such that the Euclidian distances between points in that space closely approximate the generalized distances between the points. Smoothing is performed over this new point configuration, using a conventional smoother. To mitigate the problems associated with smoothing in high dimensions we use a generalization of thin plate spline smoothers proposed by Duchon (Constructive theory of functions of several variables, pp 85–100, 1977). This general method for smoothing with respect to generalized distances improves on the performance of previous within-domain distance spatial smoothers, and often provides a more natural model than the soap film approach of Wood et al. (J R Stat Soc Ser B Stat Methodol 70(5):931–955, 2008). The smoothers are of the linear basis with quadratic penalty type easily incorporated into a range of statistical models.

Keywords

Finite area smoothing Generalized additive model Multidimensional scaling Spatial modelling Splines 

Supplementary material

10651_2014_277_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (141 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 140 KB)

References

  1. Augustin N, Musio M, von Wilpert K, Kublin E, Wood SN, Schumacher M (2009) Modeling spatiotemporal forest health monitoring data. J Am Stat Assoc 104(487):899–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernstein M, De Silva V, Langford J, Tenenbaum J (2000) Graph approximations to geodesics on embedded manifolds. Technical report, Department of Psychology, Stanford University. ftp://ftp-sop.inria.fr/prisme/boissonnat/ImageManifolds/isomap.pdf
  3. Chatfield C, Collins AJ (1980) Introduction to multivariate analysis. Science paperbacks, Chapman and HallGoogle Scholar
  4. Curriero F (2005) On the use of non-euclidean isotropy in geostatistics. Technical report 94, Johns Hopkins University, Department of Biostatistics. http://www.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1094&context=jhubiostat
  5. Driscoll TA, Trefethen L (2002) Schwartz-Christoffel transform. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Duchon J (1977) Splines minimizing rotation-invariant semi-norms in Sobolev spaces. Constructive theory of functions of several variables, pp 85–100Google Scholar
  7. Floyd RW (1962) Algorithm 97: shortest path. Commun. ACM 5(6):345–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gower J (1968) Adding a point to vector diagrams in multivariate analysis. Biometrika 55(3):582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hastie TJ, Tibshirani RJ (1990) Generalized additive models. Monographs on statistics and applied probability. Taylor & Francis, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Higham NJ (1987) Computing real square roots of a real matrix. Linear Algebra Appl 88–89:405–430. doi:10.1016/0024-3795(87)90118-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jensen OP, Christman MC, Miller TJ (2006) Landscape-based geostatistics: a case study of the distribution of blue crab in Chesapeake Bay. Environmetrics 17(6):605–621. doi:10.1002/env.767 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Løland A, Høst G (2003) Spatial covariance modelling in a complex coastal domain by multidimensional scaling. Environmetrics 14(3):307–321. doi:10.1002/env.588 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Miller DL (2012) On smooth models for complex domains and distances. PhD thesis, University of BathGoogle Scholar
  14. Miller DL, Burt ML, Rexstad EA (2013) Spatial models for distance sampling data: recent developments and future directions. Methods in Ecology and EvolutionGoogle Scholar
  15. Oh MS, Raftery AE (2001) Bayesian multidimensional scaling and. J Am Stat Assoc 96(455):1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ramsay T (2002) Spline smoothing over difficult regions. J R Stat Soc Ser B Stat Methodol 64(2):307–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rue H, Held L (2005) Gaussian Markov random fields: theory and applications. Monographs on statistics and applied probability. Taylor & Francis, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ruppert D, Wand M, Carroll RJ (2003) Semiparametric regression. Cambridge series on statistical and probabilistic mathematics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sampson PD, Guttorp P (1992) Nonparametric estimation of nonstationary spatial covariance structure. J Am Stat Assoc 87(417):108–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Scott-Hayward LAS, MacKenzie ML, Donovan CR, Walker CG, Ashe E (2013) Complex region spatial smoother (CReSS). J Comput Graph. Stat. doi: 10.1080/10618600.2012.762920
  21. Vretblad A (2003) Fourier analysis and its applications. Graduate texts in mathematics. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  22. Wang H, Ranalli M (2007) Low-rank smoothing splines on complicated domains. Biometrics 63(1):209–217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Williams R, Hedley SL, Branch TA, Bravington MV, Zerbini AN, Findlay KP (2011) Chilean blue whales as a case study to illustrate methods to estimate abundance and evaluate conservation status of rare species. Conserv Biol 25(3):526–535. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01656.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wood SN (2003) Thin plate regression splines. J R Stat Soc Ser B Stat Methodol 65(1):95–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wood SN (2006) Generalized additive models: an introduction with R. Chapman & Hall/CRC, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Wood SN (2011) Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models. J R Stat Soc Ser B Stat Methodol 73(1):3–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wood SN, Bravington MV, Hedley SL (2008) Soap film smoothing. J R Stat Soc Ser B Stat Methodol 70(5):931–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Research into Ecological and Environmental ModellingUniversity of St AndrewsThe ObservatoryScotland
  2. 2.Department of Mathematical SciencesUniversity of BathClaverton Down, BathUK

Personalised recommendations