Parallel Geostatistics for Sparse and Dense Datasets

Chapter
Part of the Quantitative Geology and Geostatistics book series (QGAG, volume 16)

Abstract

Very large spatially-referenced datasets, for example, those derived from satellite-based sensors which sample across the globe or large monitoring networks of individual sensors, are becoming increasingly common and more widely available for use in environmental decision making. In large or dense sensor networks, huge quantities of data can be collected over small time periods. In many applications the generation of maps, or predictions at specific locations, from the data in (near) real-time is crucial. Geostatistical operations such as interpolation are vital in this map-generation process and in emergency situations, the resulting predictions need to be available almost instantly, so that decision makers can make informed decisions and define risk and evacuation zones. It is also helpful when analysing data in less time critical applications, for example when interacting directly with the data for exploratory analysis, that the algorithms are responsive within a reasonable time frame. Performing geostatistical analysis on such large spatial datasets can present a number of problems, particularly in the case where maximum likelihood. Although the storage requirements only scale linearly with the number of observations in the dataset, the computational complexity in terms of memory and speed, scale quadratically and cubically respectively. Most modern commodity hardware has at least two processor cores if not more. Other mechanisms for allowing parallel computation such as Grid based systems are also becoming increasingly commonly available. However, currently there seems to be little interest in exploiting this extra processing power within the context of geostatistics. In this paper we review the existing parallel approaches for geostatistics. By recognising that different natural parallelisms exist and can be exploited depending on whether the dataset is sparsely or densely sampled with respect to the range of variation, we introduce two contrasting novel implementations of parallel algorithms based on approximating the data likelihood extending the methods of Vecchia (1988) and Tresp (2000). Using parallel maximum likelihood variogram estimation and parallel prediction algorithms we show that computational time can be significantly reduced. We demonstrate this with both sparsely sampled data and densely sampled data on a variety of architectures ranging from the common dual core processor, found in many modern desktop computers, to large multi-node super computers. To highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the different methods we employ synthetic data sets and go on to show how the methods allow maximum likelihood based inference on the exhaustive Walker Lake data set.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is funded by the European Commission, under the Sixth Framework Programme, by the Contract N. 033811 with the DG INFSO, action Line IST-2005-2.5.12 ICT for Environmental Risk Management. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the European Commission.

References

  1. Cressie NAC (1993) Statistics for spatial data. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. David M (1976) The practice of kriging. Adv Geostatistics in the Min Ind, 31:461Google Scholar
  3. Davis MW, Culbane PG (1984) Contouring very large data sets using kriging. Geostatistics for Nat Resour Characterization 2:599–619Google Scholar
  4. Emery X, Lantuéjoul C (2006) TBSIM: a computer program for conditional simulation of three-dimensional Gaussian random fields via the turning bands method. Comput Geosci, 32(10):1615–1628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fernández J, Anguita M, Mota S, Cañas A, Ortigosa E, Rojas FJ (2004) MPI toolbox for octave. In: Proceedings of 6th international conference on high performance computing for computational science, Valencia, Spain, 2004. Springer, Berlin HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  6. Gebhardt A (2003) PVM kriging with R. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on distributed statistical computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  7. Haas TC (1995) Local prediction of a spatio-temporal process with an application to wet sulfate deposition. J Am Stat Assoc, 90(432):1189–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Isaaks EH, Srivastava RM (1989) An introduction to applied geostatistics. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Kerry KE, Hawick KA (1998) Kriging interpolation on high-performance computers. In: Proceedings of the international conference and exhibition on high-performance computing and networking. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 429–438Google Scholar
  10. Pardo-Igúzquiza E, Dowd PA (1997) AMLE3D: a computer program for the inference of spatial covariance parameters by approximate maximum likelihood estimation. Comput Geosci, 23(7):793–805(13)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Pedelty JA, Schnase JL, Smith JA (2003) High performance geostatistical modeling of biospheric resources in the Cerro Grande Wildfire Site, Los Alamos, New Mexico and Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Code 930Google Scholar
  12. Schabenberger O, Gotway CA (2005) Statistical methods for spatial data analysis. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
  13. Schwaighofer A, Tresp V (2003) Transductive and inductive methods for approximate Gaussian process regression. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 15:953–960Google Scholar
  14. Stein ML, Chi Z, Welty LJ (2004) Approximating likelihoods for large spatial data sets. J R Stat Soc B 66(2):275–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tresp V (2000) A Bayesian committee machine. Neural Comput 12(11):2719–2741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tresp V (2001) Committee machines, in handbook for neural network signal processing, chapter 5. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL pp 1–18Google Scholar
  17. Vecchia AV (1988) Estimation and model identification for continuous spatial processes. J R Stat Soc B Met 50(2):297–312Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Facultad de IngenieríaUniversidad de TalcaCuricóChile
  2. 2.Neural Computing Research GroupAston UniversityBirminghamUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations