4.1 Article

Spatial Sampling Design Using Generalized Neyman-Scott Process

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13253-020-00413-3

Keywords

Cross-entropy method; Geostatistics; Kriging; Neyman-Scott process; Matern covariance function

Funding

  1. HKSAR-RGC-GRF [14601015, 14305517]
  2. NSF [TRIPODS CCF-1934884]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper introduces a new spatial sampling design procedure based on the GNS process. By optimizing the parameter sets in this process, sampling points can be selected more efficiently, making the proposed algorithm applicable to larger sample sizes while achieving similar minimization of criterion functions compared to traditional methods.
In this paper we introduce a new procedure for spatial sampling design. It is found in previous studies (Zhu and Stein in J Agric Biol Environ Stat 11:24-44, 2006) that the optimal sampling design for spatial prediction with estimated parameters is nearly regular with a few clustered points. The pattern is similar to a generalization of the Neyman-Scott (GNS) process (Yau and Loh in Statistica Sinica 22:1717-1736, 2012) which allows for regularity in the parent process. This motivates the use of a realization of the GNS process as sampling design points. This method translates the high-dimensional optimization problem of selecting sampling sites into a low-dimensional optimization problem of searching for the optimal parameter sets in the GNS process. Simulation studies indicate that the proposed sampling design algorithm is more computationally efficient than traditional methods while achieving similar minimization of the criterion functions. While the traditional methods become computationally infeasible for sample size larger than a hundred, the proposed algorithm is applicable to a size as large as n = 1024. A real data example of finding the optimal spatial design for predicting sea surface temperature in the Pacific Ocean is also considered.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available