Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Log-Gaussian Cox Processes on General Metric Graphs

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Log-Gaussian Cox processes are well-defined on every compact metric graph, and a midpoint-rule likelihood approximation drives the Hellinger distance between true and approximate posteriors to zero at a known rate.

desk verdict A genuinely useful inference scheme for LGCPs on metric graphs, with two repairable proof bugs in the main convergence theorem. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18558 v1 pith:3JDA76VU submitted 2025-01-30 stat.ME

David Bolin , Damilya Saduakhas , Alexandre B. Simas This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.ME MSC 62M3060G6062F15
keywords GaussianrandomfieldLinearnetworkLog-GaussianCoxprocessMetricgraphSpatialpointStochasticpartialdifferentialequationBayesianinferenceExcursionsets
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper extends log-Gaussian Cox processes from Euclidean domains and linear networks to any compact metric graph, such as an arbitrary road network. The random intensity is driven by a Gaussian Whittle–Matérn field, defined as the solution of a fractional stochastic differential equation on the graph, which makes the point process well-defined and can produce differentiable intensities when the smoothness parameter is large enough. Inference uses a midpoint rule for the integral in the likelihood while evaluating the latent field exactly, so the Gaussian process is never approximated. The central theoretical result is that the posterior from this approximate likelihood converges to the true posterior in Hellinger distance at rate $O(p^{-\gamma})$ for $\alpha=1$ and at rate $O(p^{-1})$ for $\alpha=2$, where $p$ is the number of integration points. The paper demonstrates the method on a road-accident data set with over 150,000 road segments and identifies high-risk segments through excursion probabilities.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Gaussian Whittle–Matérn field on a metric graph, defined as the solution to $(\kappa^2-\Delta_\Gamma)^{\alpha/2}(\tau u)=\mathcal{W}$, where $\Delta_\Gamma$ is the Kirchhoff–Laplacian and $\mathcal{W}$ is Gaussian white noise. This spectral definition gives a well-defined Gaussian process on arbitrary compact metric graphs, with sample-path regularity controlled by $\alpha$. The likelihood approximation is a midpoint rule: the integral over $\Gamma$ in the point-process likelihood is replaced by a weighted sum at integration points, while the latent field is evaluated exactly at those points. For integer $\alpha$, the finite-dimensional distributions of the field are computed exactly and sparsely by adding observation and integration locations as degree-2 vertices and exploiting the field's Markov property. Theorem A.2, imported from the Bayesian inverse-problem literature, converts a bound on the quadrature error of the potential into the stated Hellinger convergence rates.

What would settle it

Recompute the posterior for a Whittle–Matérn log-Gaussian Cox process on a compact metric graph with $\alpha=1$ or $\alpha=2$ using increasing numbers of integration points $p$, and measure the Hellinger distance to a reference posterior from a very fine quadrature or an independent exact sampler. If the distance plateaus instead of decaying like $p^{-\gamma}$ or $p^{-1}$, the assumptions are violated. A sharper check is to build a graph and a non-constant $\tau$ satisfying only part (i) of Assumption B.3 but not part (ii), and test whether $\alpha=2$ solutions lose the $C^1$ modification the proof requires.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a log-Gaussian Cox process with intensity $\Lambda(s)=\exp(m(s)+u(s))$, where $u$ is a Gaussian Whittle–Matérn field on a compact metric graph $\Gamma$, is a valid point process model on that graph, and that likelihood-based Bayesian inference for it can be both exact and scalable. Exactness comes from evaluating the finite-dimensional distributions of $u$ at the observation and integration points, which is possible in closed form when the smoothness $\alpha$ is a positive integer because the fields are Markov. Scalability comes from replacing the intractable integral of $\exp(u)$ over $\Gamma$ by a midpoint quadrature with $p$ integration points, leaving the field itself untouched. Theorem 3.1 then states that the Hellinger distance between the true posterior and the approximate posterior is $O(p^{-\gamma})$ for any $0<\gamma<1/2$ when $\alpha=1$, and $O(p^{-1})$ when $\alpha=2$. The paper calls this the first complete convergence proof for a likelihood approximation in an SPDE-driven log-Gaussian Cox process.

Load-bearing premise

The proof needs the latent field to have smooth enough sample paths on the graph—Hölder continuous when $\alpha=1$ and continuously differentiable when $\alpha=2$—which the paper guarantees only under Assumption B.3 on $\tau$ (constant or variance-stationary); if that regularity fails on some compact graph, the stated rates do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any compact metric graph, not only linear networks or graphs with Euclidean edges, can now support a log-Gaussian Cox process with a valid stochastic intensity.
  • For integer smoothness, Bayesian inference no longer requires approximating the latent field: only the likelihood integral is discretized, and the posterior error is controlled by an explicit rate.
  • Setting $\alpha=2$ yields differentiable intensities, which isotropic covariance models on networks cannot provide, and the posterior approximation converges at the faster $O(p^{-1})$ rate.
  • The method scales to city-sized networks: the accident application fits the model on a graph with more than 150,000 road segments in roughly one minute per model.
  • Excursion sets computed from the fitted posterior can map road segments where the latent risk is significantly elevated, turning the point-process fit into hotspot localization.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Extending the convergence rates to non-integer $\alpha$ will likely require combining the midpoint likelihood with a finite-element or rational approximation of the fractional Laplacian; the paper lists this as future work, and the resulting rates would have to account for the additional approximation error.
  • The same proof template—exact finite-dimensional field evaluations plus midpoint quadrature plus a potential bound—could transfer to other SPDE-driven point process models, such as space-time log-Gaussian Cox processes, whenever the required sample-path regularity is available.
  • The weighted-Kirchhoff variant mentioned in the discussion would change vertex conditions to reflect directional traffic flow; if implemented, the expected suppression of intensity near high-degree intersections would disappear, so hotspot maps on road networks might shift away from junctions.
  • Readers should treat the reported hotspot maps as conditional on the chosen threshold and mesh spacing; the paper does not report sensitivity of excursion sets to those tuning choices.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a class of log-Gaussian Cox processes on compact metric graphs, built on Whittle–Matérn fields defined as solutions to fractional-order SPDEs. The main contributions are: (i) a proof that these processes are well defined on any compact metric graph; (ii) a likelihood approximation based on a midpoint quadrature rule that avoids approximating the Gaussian field, together with claimed Hellinger convergence rates for the resulting posterior as the number of integration points grows (O(p^{-γ}) for α=1 and O(p^{-1}) for α=2); (iii) an implementation in the MetricGraph R package with R-INLA; and (iv) an application to traffic accident data from Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia. The central theoretical result is Theorem 3.1, whose proof is deferred to Appendix C and relies on an abstract posterior-approximation theorem of Cotter–Dashti–Stuart.

Significance. If the theoretical claims are established, the paper makes a substantial contribution: it provides the first class of log-Gaussian Cox processes on arbitrary compact metric graphs, offers a scalable likelihood-based inference method that preserves the exactness of finite-dimensional distributions for integer smoothness, gives explicit posterior convergence rates, and demonstrates the methodology on a large real network. The open-source implementation and the excursion-set analysis are useful practical additions. However, the proofs as printed contain load-bearing gaps in the verification of the conditions needed for the convergence theorem; these gaps are local and appear repairable, but until they are fixed the main theoretical guarantee is not established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix C, Theorem C.1] The quadrature weights are defined inconsistently with the claimed error bound. The theorem sets w_i = |s~_{i+1,e} - s~_{i,e}|, the distance between consecutive evaluation points, whereas the proof bounds the quadrature error by ∫_{q_i}^{q_{i+1}} |f(t) - f(s~_{i,e})| dt, which is only valid when the weights are the interval lengths |q_{i+1,e} - q_{i,e}|. With the printed weights, the identity |∫_e f(t) dt - Σ_i w_i f(s~_{i,e})| ≤ Σ_i ∫_{q_i}^{q_{i+1}} |f(t) - f(s~_{i,e})| dt does not hold: an additional term Σ_i (|q_{i+1,e} - q_{i,e}| - w_i) f(s~_{i,e}) appears and is not controlled. Since Section 3 and the implementation use the midpoint rule with interval-length weights, Theorem C.1 as stated does not prove the claimed convergence rate for the implemented method. The weight definition and the corresponding step in the proof must be corrected.
  2. [Appendix C, verification of Assumption A.1(ii)] The proof of the upper bound for the potential uses the inequality ∫_e exp{u_e(t)} dt ≤ |E||Γ| ||u||_{C(Γ)}, which is false; for example, if u ≡ 0 the left-hand side is |E||Γ| while the right-hand side is 0. The correct bound is |E||Γ| exp(||u||_{C(Γ)}), which still yields a finite constant L(r) for ||u|| < r. As printed, condition (ii) of Assumption A.1 is not established, so the application of Theorem A.2 is not justified. This is repairable, but the inequality must be corrected.
  3. [Appendix B, Assumption B.3(ii)] Assumption B.3(ii) is vacuous for the α=2 case used in Theorem C.1. Since α~ = min{α−1/2, 1/2} = 1/2 when α=2, the condition γ∈(0, α~−1) reads γ∈(0, −1/2), which is empty. Thus the assumed regularity τ_e∈C^{1,γ}(e) cannot hold for any γ, and the proof's assertion that μ0(eC^1(Γ)) = 1 for α=2 does not follow from Assumption B.3 as stated. The intended condition is presumably γ∈(0, α−3/2), consistent with Proposition B.5(ii); please correct it and check the consistency of all statements that refer to this assumption.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix C, Theorem C.1] The phrase 'with s~_{0,e} = 0' is confusing: s~_{0,e} is not used elsewhere and the partition starts at q_{1,e}. Either delete it or state explicitly what it refers to.
  2. [Appendix C, Theorem C.1] The sentence 'there exists a constant K, independent of p_e, such that there exist K1, K2 > 0 such that ...' introduces a constant K that is never used; it should be removed or used in the bounds.
  3. [Section 3, equation (7)] The notation e~a_i (and e~a) is visually awkward and could be confused with an exponential. A clearer notation such as h_i or w_i for quadrature weights would improve readability, especially since Theorem C.1 uses w_i.
  4. [Section 3, paragraph on likelihood approximation] It would be helpful to state explicitly that, for the midpoint rule, the weights in (7) are the lengths of the mesh intervals, linking the implementation to the corrected weight definition in Theorem C.1.
  5. [Appendix B, Proposition B.4 and B.5] The paper relies on results from the preprint [11] for sample-path regularity. Since [11] is not yet peer-reviewed, and since Assumption B.3 currently contains an inconsistency, the authors should ensure that the statements imported from [11] are reproduced correctly and that the dependence on [11] is clearly flagged.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: posterior rate theorem is derived from an external posterior-approximation theorem plus independent regularity results; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central theoretical claim (Theorem 3.1 and Appendix C) derives the Hellinger-rate bound for the midpoint-rule posterior from the external posterior-approximation theorem of Cotter, Dashti and Stuart (Theorem A.2), after verifying the potential bounds. The quadrature-error estimates use the sample-path regularity of Whittle–Matérn fields (Lemmas B.1/B.2 and Propositions B.4/B.5), which are prior results by the same authors, but they are used as external, parameter-free regularity statements whose assumptions do not include the posterior rate; they are not fitted to the current target. The likelihood approximation (7) is not used to fit the convergence rate; the rate is obtained analytically from the quadrature error. The paper contains no fitted-input-called-prediction step: the application fits the model and reports posterior summaries, it does not claim to predict a held-out quantity from fitted constants. The only self-citations (field existence [9], Markov/precision matrices [7,10], regularity [11]) are supporting mathematical results with independent proofs. The skeptic's concerns about the proof are genuine correctness gaps (the printed weight definition in Theorem C.1 does not match interval lengths, and the bound in Assumption A.1(ii) uses |Γ| ||u|| instead of |Γ| exp(||u||)), but these are repairable technical flaws, not circularity. Therefore no step of the derivation reduces to its own inputs by construction, and the circularity score is minimal.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central theorem has no fitted constants. It relies on standard posterior-approximation theory, on the existence and regularity of Whittle-Matérn fields on metric graphs, and on exact precision-matrix formulas from prior papers by the same group. The application uses manually chosen mesh spacing and default priors, but these do not enter the convergence theorem.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption For α>1/2, equation (2) has a unique solution, the Whittle-Matérn field, with the stated sample-path regularity.
    The model class and the quadrature error bound depend on the existence and Hölder/C^1 regularity of the solution, cited as [9] and [11].
  • domain assumption For integer α, the finite-dimensional distributions of the Whittle-Matérn field on a refined metric graph are exact Gaussian Markov random fields with computable precision matrices.
    This is what makes likelihood inference exact in the latent field; the paper cites [7] and [10] and does not reprove it.
  • domain assumption Assumption B.3 on τ: τ is Hölder or C^1 with Kirchhoff conditions when α>3/2, and both constant τ and variance-stationary τ satisfy it.
    The convergence theorem is stated only under this assumption; the variance-stationary case is asserted in [11, Proposition 5].
  • standard math The Cox-process likelihood has potential Φ(u;y)=Σ_e(∫_e exp(u)ds - Σ_i u(s_i)), and the posterior is absolutely continuous with respect to the prior.
    This is the standard LGCP likelihood, used to set up the Hellinger bound; no derivation is given beyond standard point-process theory.
  • standard math Theorem A.2 from Cotter-Dashti-Stuart: Hellinger convergence follows from uniform potential bounds and |Φ-Φ_p|≤K exp(ε||u||^2)ψ(p).
    The main theorem is a direct application of this external theorem; its hypotheses are checked in Appendix C.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Log-Gaussian Cox Processes on General Metric Graphs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3JDA76VU

@misc{pith2026250118558,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Log-Gaussian Cox Processes on General Metric Graphs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3JDA76VU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18558}
}
read the original abstract

The modeling of spatial point processes has advanced considerably, yet extending these models to non-Euclidean domains, such as road networks, remains a challenging problem. We propose a novel framework for log-Gaussian Cox processes on general compact metric graphs by leveraging the Gaussian Whittle-Mat\'ern fields, which are solutions to fractional-order stochastic differential equations on metric graphs. To achieve computationally efficient likelihood-based inference, we introduce a numerical approximation of the likelihood that eliminates the need to approximate the Gaussian process. This method, coupled with the exact evaluation of finite-dimensional distributions for Whittle-Mat\'ern fields with integer smoothness, ensures scalability and theoretical rigour, with derived convergence rates for posterior distributions. The framework is implemented in the open-source MetricGraph R package, which integrates seamlessly with R-INLA to support fully Bayesian inference. We demonstrate the applicability and scalability of this approach through an analysis of road accident data from Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia, consisting of over 150,000 road segments. By identifying high-risk road segments using exceedance probabilities and excursion sets, our framework provides localized insights into accident hotspots and offers a powerful tool for modeling spatial point processes directly on complex networks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18558 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Intensity function 𝜌 (left) and pair correlation function 𝑔(𝑠, ·) (right) for a Whittle–Matérn log-Gaussian Cox process with 𝛼 = 1, 𝜅 = 2, 𝜏 = 1. The red point in the right panel indicates the location 𝑠. 3 Statistical Inference Likelihood-based inference for log-Gaussian Cox processes is challenging as the likelihood of the data conditionally on the intensity function is 𝜋(𝑌 | 𝜆) = exp  |Γ| − ∫ Γ 𝜆(𝑠)d𝑠  Ö 𝑠𝑖 ∈𝑌 … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Street network representing the metric graph used for model fitting. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The estimated log-intensity log 𝜆(𝑠) for Model 1 (left) and Model 2 (right). 4.4 Results Both models were estimated using R-INLA. This required 55 seconds for Model 1 and 73 seconds for Model 2. The estimated field parameters and the estimated intercepts of the two models are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The posterior mean of 𝑢 for Model 2. develop targeted interventions to reduce road accidents and improve traffic safety. A method for defining simultaneous credible bands for latent Gaussian models was introduced by Bolin and Lindgren [5] and implemented in the excursi…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Marginal excursion probabilities for 𝑢 in Model 2. dangerous taking the covariates into account [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Excursion function for 𝑢 in Model 2. would make it computationally infeasible to fit on any standard desktop computer. This comparison underscores the computational efficiency of our approach. Finally, while excursion sets have been extensively applied in environmental…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Anderes, J

    E. Anderes, J. Møller, and J. G. Rasmussen. Isotropic covariance functions on graphs and their edges.The Annals of Statistics, 48(4):2478 – 2503, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Baddeley, E

    A. Baddeley, E. Rubak, and R. Turner. Spatial Point Patterns: Methodology and Applications with R. Chapman and Hall/CRC Press, London, 2015. ISBN 9781482210200. URL https: //www.routledge.com/Spatial-Point-Patterns-Methodology-and-Applications-with-R/ Baddeley-Rubak-Turner/p/book/9781482210200/

    arXiv 2015

  3. [3]

    Stationary

    A. Baddeley, G. Nair, S. Rakshit, and G. McSwiggan. “Stationary” point processes are uncommon on linear networks. Stat, 6(1):68–78, 2017. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/sta4.135. URLhttps://onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/sta4.135

    work page doi:10.1002/sta4.135 2017

  4. [4]

    Analysingpointpatternsonnetworks— A review.Spatial Statistics, 42, 2021

    A.Baddeley,G.Nair,S.Rakshit,G.McSwiggan,andT.M.Davies. Analysingpointpatternsonnetworks— A review.Spatial Statistics, 42, 2021. ISSN 2211-6753. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spasta.2020.100435

    work page arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    ExcursionandcontouruncertaintyregionsforlatentGaussianmodels

    D.BolinandF.Lindgren. ExcursionandcontouruncertaintyregionsforlatentGaussianmodels. J.R.Statist. Soc. B, 77:85–106, 2014. URLhttp://wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/rss-datasets

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Bolin and F

    D. Bolin and F. Lindgren. Calculating probabilistic excursion sets and related quantities using excursions. Journal of Statistical Software, 86, 2018. ISSN 15487660. doi: 10.18637/jss.v086.i05

    work page doi:10.18637/jss.v086.i05 2018

  7. [7]

    Bolin, A

    D. Bolin, A. B. Simas, and J. Wallin. Statistical inference for Gaussian Whittle-Matérn fields on metric graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.10372, 2023. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2304.10372

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.10372 2023

  8. [8]

    Bolin, A

    D. Bolin, A. B. Simas, and J. Wallin.MetricGraph: Random fields on metric graphs, 2023. URLhttps: //CRAN.R-project.org/package=MetricGraph. R package version 1.4.0

    work page 2023

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Bolin, A

    D. Bolin, A. B. Simas, and J. Wallin. Gaussian Whittle-Matérn fields on metric graphs.Bernoulli, 30(2): 1611–1639, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    MarkovpropertiesofGaussianrandomfieldsoncompactmetricgraphs

    D.Bolin,A.B.Simas,andJ.Wallin. MarkovpropertiesofGaussianrandomfieldsoncompactmetricgraphs. Bernoulli, 2024. doi: arxiv:2304.03190. Accepted for publication

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Bolin, L

    D. Bolin, L. Riera-Segura, and A. B. Simas. A new class of non-stationary Gaussian fields with general smoothness on metric graphs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.11738, 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    Bolin, A

    D. Bolin, A. B. Simas, and J. Wallin. An explicit link between graphical models and Gaussian Markov random fields on metric graphs, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2501.03701

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Chaudhuri, P

    S. Chaudhuri, P. Juan, and J. Mateu. Spatio-temporal modeling of traffic accidents incidence on urban road networks based on an explicit network triangulation.Journal of Applied Statistics, 50(16):3229–3250, DEC 10 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Chaudhuri, M

    S. Chaudhuri, M. Saez, D. Varga, and P. Juan. Spatiotemporal modeling of traffic risk mapping: A study of urban road networks in Barcelona, Spain.Spatial Statistics, 53, 3 2023. ISSN 22116753. doi: 10.1016/j. spasta.2022.100722

    2023

  7. [15]

    S. L. Cotter, M. Dashti, and A. M. Stuart. Approximation of Bayesian inverse problems for PDEs.SIAM journal on numerical analysis, 48(1):322–345, 2010

    2010

  8. [16]

    P. F. Craigmile and P. Guttorp. A combined estimate of global temperature.Environmetrics, 33(3):e2706,

  9. [17]

    Cronie, M

    O. Cronie, M. Moradi, and J. Mateu. Inhomogeneous higher-order summary statistics for point processes on linear networks.Statistics and Computing, 30(5):1221–1239, 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    D’Angelo, G

    N. D’Angelo, G. Adelfio, A. Abbruzzo, and J. Mateu. Inhomogeneous spatio-temporal point processes on linear networks for visitors’ stops data.The Annals of Applied Statistics, 16(2):791 – 815, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    StatisticalAnalysisofSpatialandSpatio-TemporalPointPatterns

    P.Diggle. StatisticalAnalysisofSpatialandSpatio-TemporalPointPatterns . ChapmanandHall/CRCPress,

  12. [20]

    P. J. Diggle, P. Moraga, B. Rowlingson, and B. M. Taylor. Spatial and Spatio-Temporal Log-Gaussian Cox Processes: Extending the Geostatistical Paradigm.Statistical Science, 28(4):542 – 563, 2013

    2013

  13. [21]

    J. B. Illian, S. H. Sørbye, H. Rue, and D. Hendrichsen. Using INLA to fit a complex point process model with temporally varying effects – a case study.Journal of Environmental Statistics, 3, 2012. URL https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/handle/10023/3306

    2012

  14. [22]

    Lindgren, H

    F. Lindgren, H. Rue, and J. Lindström. An explicit link between Gaussian fields and Gaussian Markov random fields: The stochastic partial differential equation approach (with discussion).Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 73(4):423–498, 2011

    2011

  15. [23]

    Møller and R

    J. Møller and R. Waagepetersen.Statistical inference and simulation for spatial point processes. Number 100 in Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability. Chapman & Hall, 2003. ISBN 1584882654

    2003

  16. [24]

    Møller and J

    J. Møller and J. G. Rasmussen. Cox processes driven by transformed Gaussian processes on lin- ear networks—A review and new contributions. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 51(3):1288–1322,

  17. [25]

    Møller, A

    J. Møller, A. R. Syversveen, and R. P. Waagepetersen. Log Gaussian Cox Processes.Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 25:451–482, 1998

    1998

  18. [26]

    Okabe and K

    A. Okabe and K. Sugihara.Spatial analysis along networks: statistical and computational methods. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2012. ISBN 9781119967101. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119967101.ch2

    2012 doi

  19. [27]

    M.Padgham,B.Rudis,R.Lovelace,andM.Salmon. osmdata. JournalofOpenSourceSoftware ,2(14):305, jun2017. doi: 10.21105/joss.00305. URLhttps://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.00305

    doi

  20. [28]

    E. Pebesma. Simple features for R: Standardized support for spatial vector data.The R Journal, 10(1): 439–446, 2018. doi: 10.32614/RJ-2018-009. URLhttps://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2018-009

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing

    R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2024. URLhttps://www.R-project.org/

    2024

  22. [30]

    M. M. Rahman, M. K. Islam, A. Al-Shayeb, and M. Arifuzzaman. Towards sustainable road safety in saudi arabia: Exploring traffic accident causes associated with driving behavior using a Bayesian belief network. Sustainability, 14(10), 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Rajala, C

    T. Rajala, C. Redenbach, A. Särkkä, and M. Sormani. A review on anisotropy analysis of spatial point patterns. Spatial Statistics, 28, 12 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.spasta.2018.04.005

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    H. Rue, S. Martino, and N. Chopin. Approximate bayesian inference for latent Gaussian models by using integrated nested laplace approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 71(2):319–392, 2009. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.146...

    2009

  25. [33]

    Simpson, J

    D. Simpson, J. B. Illian, F. Lindgren, S. H. Sørbye, and H. Rue. Going off grid: computationally efficient inference for log-Gaussian Cox processes.Biometrika, 103:49–70, 3 2016. ISSN 0006-3444. doi: 10.1093/ biomet/asv064. URL https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/asv064

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    A. M. Stuart. Inverse problems: a Bayesian perspective.Acta numerica, 19:451–559, 2010

    2010

  27. [35]

    Traffic Stats: Historical traffic analysis suite

    TomTom. Traffic Stats: Historical traffic analysis suite. https://www.tomtom.com/products/traffic-stats/,

  28. [36]

    H. Wickham. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag New York, 2016. ISBN 978-3-319-24277-4. URL https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org. 18

    2016

  29. [2013]

    doi: 10.1201/b15326. 17

    doi

  30. [2022]

    URLhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/env.2706. URLhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10. 1002/env.2706

    doi

  31. [2024]

    URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/ 10.1111/sjos.12720

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/sjos.12720. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/ 10.1111/sjos.12720

    doi

  32. [2025]

    URL https://www.tomtom.com/products/traffic-stats/

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.