Some Results on the Spatial Breakdown Point of Robust Point Estimates of the Variogram
- 102 Downloads
The effect of outliers on estimates of the variogram depends on how they are distributed in space. The ‘spatial breakdown point’ is the largest proportion of observations which can be drawn from some arbitrary contaminating process without destroying a robust variogram estimator, when they are arranged in the most damaging spatial pattern. A numerical method is presented to find the spatial breakdown point for any sample array in two dimensions or more. It is shown by means of some examples that such a numerical approach is needed to determine the spatial breakdown point for two or more dimensions, even on a regular square sample grid, since previous conjectures about the spatial breakdown point in two dimensions do not hold. The ‘average spatial breakdown point’ has been used as a basis for practical guidelines on the intensity of contaminating processes that can be tolerated by robust variogram estimators. It is the largest proportion of contaminating observations in a data set such that the breakdown point of the variance estimator used to obtain point estimates of the variogram is not exceeded by the expected proportion of contaminated pairs of observations over any lag. In this paper the behaviour of the average spatial breakdown point is investigated for cases where the contaminating process is spatially dependent. It is shown that in two dimensions the average spatial breakdown point is 0.25. Finally, the ‘empirical spatial breakdown point’, a tool for the exploratory analysis of spatial data thought to contain outliers, is introduced and demonstrated using data on metal content in the soils of Sheffield, England. The empirical spatial breakdown point of a particular data set can be used to indicate whether the distribution of possible contaminants is likely to undermine a robust variogram estimator.
KeywordsVariogram Robust Breakdown point Spatial breakdown point
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Aarts E, Korst J (1989) Simulated annealing and Boltzmann machines—a stochastic approach to combinatorial optimization and neural computing. Wiley, New York, 200 p Google Scholar
- Baird DB (2007) MPOLISH. In: Payne RW (ed) Genstat procedure library PL18. VSN International, Hemel Hempstead Google Scholar
- Chilès J-P, Delfiner P (1999) Geostatistics, modeling spatial uncertainty. Wiley, New York, 695 p Google Scholar
- Cressie NAC (1993) Statistics for Spatial Data, revised edn. Wiley, New York, 900 p Google Scholar
- Hampel FR, Ronchetti EM, Rouseeuw PJ, Stahel WA (1986) Robust statistics: the approach based on influence functions. Wiley, New York, 502 p Google Scholar
- Journel AG, Huijbregts CJ (1978) Mining geostatistics. Academic Press, London, 600 p Google Scholar
- Matheron G (1962) Traité de geostatistique appliqué, Tome 1. Memoires du bureau de recherches geologiques et minières, Paris, 334 p Google Scholar
- Omre H (1984) The variogram and its estimation. In: Verly G, David M, Journel AG, Marechal A (eds) Geostatistics for natural resources characterization, Part 1. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 107–125 Google Scholar
- Rousseeuw PJ (1985) Multivariate estimation with high breakdown point. In: Grossmann W, Pflug G, Vincze I, Wertz W (eds) Proceedings of the 4th Pannonian symposium on mathematical statistics and probability. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 283–297 Google Scholar
- Rousseeuw PJ, Croux C (1992) Explicit scale estimators with high breakdown point. In: Dodge Y (ed) L1 statistical analysis and related methods. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 77–92 Google Scholar
- Stein ML (1999) Interpolation of Spatial Data: Some Theory for Kriging. Springer, New York, 247 p Google Scholar