4.5 Article

Fundamental problems in fitting spatial cluster process models

期刊

SPATIAL STATISTICS
卷 52, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.spasta.2022.100709

关键词

Cluster strength; Composite likelihood; Minimum contrast estimation; Palm likelihood; Penalised fitting; Sibling probability

资金

  1. Royal Society of New Zealand [19-UOO-191]
  2. Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment, New Zealand?s Research Infrastructure programme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Existing methods for fitting Neyman-Scott cluster process models often fail due to fundamental flaws in the model structure. We propose remedies for these problems and suggest derived parameters to improve the understanding of the fitted model.
Existing methods for fitting Neyman-Scott cluster process mod-els to spatial point pattern data often fail to converge, or con-verge to implausible values of the parameters, or exhibit numerical instability. These failures have been viewed as weak-nesses of the particular model-fitting method. However, we show that they are attributable to fundamental flaws in the model structure: The model is not closed under convergence in distribution; the Poisson process is not included in the model; cluster scale is unidentifiable when the model is close to a Poisson process. We obtain new results about properties of cluster processes, and about the distance from a cluster process to a Poisson process. We define an index of cluster strength phi which plays an important role in the analysis. Remedies for the fundamental problems are proposed: the model is extended to include the Poisson process by allowing phi = 0; unidentifiability is remedied using shrinkage estimators involving a penalty on cluster scale. To improve understanding of the fitted model in applications we propose several derived parameters. The im-proved fitting methods are implemented in open source R code. Simulation experiments and real data examples demonstrate the improved performance.(c) 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据