Abstract
The Matérn family of covariance functions is currently the most commonly used for the analysis of geostatistical data due to its ability to describe different smoothness behaviors. Yet, in many applications, the smoothness parameter is set at an arbitrary value. This practice is due partly to computational challenges faced when attempting to estimate all covariance parameters and partly to unqualified claims in the literature stating that geostatistical data have little or no information about the smoothness parameter. This work critically investigates this claim and shows it is not true in general. Specifically, it is shown that the information the data have about the correlation parameters varies substantially depending on the true model and sampling design and, in particular, the information about the smoothness parameter can be large, in some cases larger than the information about the range parameter. In light of these findings, we suggest to reassess the aforementioned practice and instead establish inferences from data-based estimates of both range and smoothness parameters, especially for strongly dependent non-smooth processes observed on irregular sampling designs. A data set of daily rainfall totals is used to motivate the discussion and gauge this common practice.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bachoc F (2014) Asymptotic analysis of the role of spatial sampling for covariance parameter estimation of Gaussian processes. J Multivar Anal 125:1–35
Bevilacqua M, Faouzi T, Furrer R, Porcu E (2019) Estimation and prediction using generalized Wendland covariance functions under fixed domain asymptotics. Ann Stat 47:828–856
Bose M, Hodges J, Banerjee S (2018) Toward a diagnostic toolkit for linear models with Gaussian-process distributed random effects. Biometrics 74:863–873
Cressie N (1993) Statistics for Spatial Data (rev. ed.). Wiley
De Oliveira V, Kedem B, Short D (1997) Bayesian prediction of transformed Gaussian random fields. J Am Stat Assoc 92:1422–1433
Diggle P, Lophaven S (2006) Bayesian geostatistical design. Scand J Stat 33:53–64
Diggle P, Ribeiro P (2007) Model-Based Geostatistics. Springer-Verlag
Gelfand A, Schliep E (2016) Spatial statistics and Gaussian processes: a beautiful marriage. Spat Stat 18:86–104
Geoga C, Marin O, Schanen M, Stein M (2022) Fitting Matérn smoothness parameters using automatic differentiation. arXiv:2201.00090v1
Gradshteyn T, Ryzhik I (2000) Table of integrals, series, and products, 6th edn. Academic Press
Guttorp P, Gneiting T (2006) Studies in the history of probability and statistics XLIX on the Matérn correlation family. Biometrika 93:989–995
Handcock M, Stein M (1993) A Bayesian analysis of kriging. Technometrics 35:403–410
Kaufman C, Shaby B (2013) The role of the range parameter for estimation and prediction in geostatistics. Biometrika 100:473–484
Keener R (2010) Theoretical statistics: topics for a core course. Springer
Loh W-L (2015) Estimating the smoothness of a Gaussian random field from irregularly spaced data via higher-order quadratic variations. Ann Stat 43:2766–2794
Loh W-L, Sun S, Wen J (2021) On fixed-domain asymptotics, parameter estimation and isotropic Gaussian random fields with Matérn covariance functions. Ann Stat 49:3127–3152
Matérn B (1986) Spatial Variation, 2nd edn. Springer-Verlag
McCullagh P, Clifford D (2006) Evidence for conformal invariance of crop yields. Proce Royal Soc A 462:2119–2143
McCulloch R (1989) Local model influence. J Am Stat Assoc 84:473–478
Papritz A, Schwierz C (2021)georob: Robust geostatistical analysis of spatial data. R package version 0.3-14
Seber G, Wild C (2003) Nonlinear Regression. Wiley
Stein M (1988) Asymptotically efficient prediction of a random field with a misspecified covariance function. Ann Stat 16:55–63
Stein M (1990) Uniform asymptotic optimality of linear predictions of a random field using an incorrect second-order structure. Ann Stat 18:850–872
Stein M (1993) A simple condition for asymptotic optimality of linear predictions of random fields. Stat Prob Lett 17:399–404
Stein M (1999) Interpolation of spatial data: some theory for Kriging. Springer-Verlag
Steiner M, Houze R, Yuter S (1995) Climatological characterization of three-dimensional structure from operational radar and gauge data. J Appl Meteorol 34:1978–2007
Wu W-Y, Lim C (2016) Estimation of smoothness of a stationary Gaussian random field. Stat Sin 26:1729–1745
Wu W-Y, Lim C, Xiao Y (2013) Tail estimation of the spectral density for a stationary Gaussian random field. J Multivar Anal 116:74–91
Zhang H (2004) Inconsistent estimation and asymptotically equal interpolations in model-based geostatistics. J Am Stat Assoc 99:250–261
Zhu Z, Stein M (2005) Spatial sampling design for parameter estimation of the covariance function. J Stat Plan Inference 134:583–603
Zhu Z, Stein M (2006) Spatial sampling design for prediction with estimated parameters. J Agric Biol Environ Stat 11:24–44
Zhu Z, Zhang H (2006) Spatial sampling design under the infill asymptotic framework. Environmetrics 17:323–337
Zimmerman D (2006) Optimal network design for spatial prediction, covariance parameter estimation, and empirical prediction. Environmetrics 17:635–652
Zimmerman D (2010) Likelihood-Based Methods. In: Gelfand AE, Diggle PJ, Fuentes M, Guttorp P (eds) Handbook of Spatial Statistics. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 45–56
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Associate Editor and three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions that lead to an improved article. We also thank Eric Slud for stimulating conversations and feedback in the early stages of this research. Victor De Oliveira was partially supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation grant DMS–2113375. Zifei Han was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, China in UIBE (CXTD11-05).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
Derivation of Identities ( 4.6 ) and ( 4.7 )
To derive (4.6), write the Matérn correlation function as \(K_{\varvec{\varvec{\vartheta }}}(r) = c(\nu ) b(\vartheta )^{\nu } {\mathcal {K}}_{\nu }(b(\vartheta ))\), where \(c(\nu ) := {2^{1 - \nu }}/{\Gamma (\nu )}\) and \(b(\vartheta ) := {2r\sqrt{\nu }}/{\vartheta } \). Then by direct differentiation
where the second identity follows from (4.3).
To derive (4.7), write the Matérn correlation function as
so after direct differentiation we have
Now, let \(G(x, y) := {\mathcal {K}}_{x}(y)\). Then
where the third identity follows from (4.3) and (4.5). Finally, replacing (6.2) into (6.1), we get
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
De Oliveira, V., Han, Z. On Information About Covariance Parameters in Gaussian Matérn Random Fields. JABES 27, 690–712 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13253-022-00510-5
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13253-022-00510-5