1 / 30

Estimation and Model Selection for Geostatistical Models

Estimation and Model Selection for Geostatistical Models. Kathryn M. Georgitis Alix I. Gitelman Oregon State University Jennifer A. Hoeting Colorado State University. Designs and Models for. Aquatic Resource Surveys. R82-9096-01. DAMARS.

carney
Download Presentation

Estimation and Model Selection for Geostatistical Models

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Estimation and Model Selection for Geostatistical Models Kathryn M. Georgitis Alix I. Gitelman Oregon State University Jennifer A. Hoeting Colorado State University

  2. Designs and Models for Aquatic Resource Surveys R82-9096-01 DAMARS The research described in this presentation has been funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through the STAR Cooperative Agreement CR82-9096-01 Program on Designs and Models for Aquatic Resource Surveys at Oregon State University. It has not been subjected to the Agency's review and therefore does not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency, and no official endorsement should be inferred

  3. Talk Outline • Stream Sulfate Concentration • G.I.S. Data Sources • Bayesian Spatial Model • Implementation Problems • What exactly is the problem? • Simulation results

  4. Original Objective: Model sulfate concentration in streams in the Mid-Atlantic U.S. using a Bayesian geostatistical model

  5. Why stream sulfate concentration? • Indirectly toxic to fish and aquatic biota • Decrease in streamwater pH • Increase in metal concentrations (AL) • Observed positive spatial relationship with atmospheric SO4-2 deposition (Kaufmann et al 1991)

  6. Wet Atmospheric Sulfate Deposition http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/cmap/mapgallery/mg_wetsulfatephase1.html

  7. The Data • MAHA/MAIA water chemistry data • 644 stream locations • Watershed variables: • % forest, % agriculture, % urban, % mining • % within ecoregions with high sulfate adsorption soils • National Atmospheric Deposition Program

  8. MAHA/MAIA Stream Locations

  9. Map of NADP and MAHA/MAIA Locations

  10. Sketch of watershed with overlaid landcover map

  11. Bayesian Geostatistical Model (1) • Where Y(s) is observed ln(SO4-2) concentration at stream locations • X(s) is matrix of watershed explanatory variables • b is vector of regression coefficients Where D is matrix of pairwise distances, f is 1/range, t2is the partial sill s2is the nugget

  12. Bayesian Geostatistical Model Priors: b~Np(0,h2I) f~Uniform(a,b) 1/t2 ~ Gamma(g,h) 1/s2 ~Gamma(f,l) (Banerjee et al 2004, and GeoBugs documentation)

  13. Semi-Variogram of ln(SO4-2) Range Partial Sill Nugget

  14. Results using Winbugs 4.1 • n=644 • tried different covariance functions • only exponential without a nugget worked • computationally intensive • 1000 iterations took approx. 2 1/4 hours

  15. New Objective: Why is this not working? Large N problem? Possible solutions: SMCMC: ‘accelerates convergence by simultaneously updating multivariate blocks of (highly correlated) parameters’ (Sargent et al. 2000, Cowles 2003, Banerjee et al 2004 ) • f = (1/range) did not converge subset data to n=322 SMCMC & Winbugs: • f still did not converge and posterior intervals for all parameters dissimilar

  16. Is the problem the prior specification? Investigated sensitivity to priors Original Priors: b~Np(0,h2I) f~Uniform(a,b) 1/t2 ~ Gamma(g,h) 1/s2 ~Gamma(f,l) - f: Tried Gamma and different Uniform distributions (Banerjee et al 2004, Berger et al 2001) • Variance components: Tried different Gamma distributions, half-Cauchy (Gelman 2004)

  17. Is the problem the presence of a nugget? • Simulations: • RandomFields package in R • Using MAHA coordinates (n=322) • Constant mean • Exponential covariance with and without a nugget • Prior Sensitivity (Berger et al. 2001, Gelman 2004)

  18. Posterior Intervals for fUsing Different Priors Prior f~Uniform (4,6) Prior f~Uniform (0,100)

  19. Posterior Intervals for Partial SillUsing Different Priors for f Prior f~Uniform (4,6) Prior f~ Uniform (0,100)

  20. Is the Spatial Signal too weak? • Simulations were using nugget/sill = 2/3 • Try using a range of nugget/sill ratios • Previous research: • Mardia & Marshall (1984): spherical with and without nugget • Zimmerman & Zimmerman (1991): R.E.M.L vs M.L.E. for Exponential without nugget • Lark (2000): M.O.M. vs M.L.E. for spherical with nugget

  21. Is the Spatial Signal too weak? f= 10 andf = 2.5 100 realizations each combination

  22. Simulation Results for f=10Bias for ML and REML Estimates

  23. Simulation Results for f=10Bias for ML and REML Estimates

  24. Simulation Results for f=2.5Bias for ML and REML Estimates

  25. Simulation Results for f=2.5Bias for ML and REML Estimates

  26. Conclusions • Covariance Model Selection Problem • ML, REML, Bayesian Estimation (Harville 1974) • Infill Asymptotic Properties of M.L.E.: • Ying 1993: Ornstein-Uhlenbeck without nugget 2-dim.; lattice design • Chen et al 2000: Ornstein-Uhlenbeck with nugget; 1-dim. • Zhang 2004: Exponential without nugget; found increasing range more skewed distributions

  27. Simulation Results for f=2.5Bias for ML and REML Estimates

  28. Simulation Results for f=2.5Bias for ML and REML Estimates

  29. Simulation Results for f=10Bias for ML and REML Estimates

  30. Results from SMCMC and Winbugs

More Related