Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Geoinformation dependencies in geographic space and beyond

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Geographic dependency is a projection of hidden covariates

desk verdict A clear conceptual synthesis that reframes spatial dependence as omitted covariates, but the demonstration is circular and the theorem is overextended; fine as a perspective piece, not as a new result. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.01260 v1 pith:GN2NK27H submitted 2025-05-02 stat.AP

Jon Wang , Meng Lu This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.AP MSC 62M3060G60
keywords geographicdependencyspatialautocorrelationnon-stationarityGaussianprocessregressionvariogramdimensionexpansiongeostatisticscovariateequivalence
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

This paper argues that the familiar geostatistical properties of geographic dependency—spatial autocorrelation, similarity, heterogeneity, and non-stationarity—are not intrinsic features of geographic space. Instead, they are a lower-dimensional projection of variation that unfolds along many predictor dimensions, and geographic coordinates play the same role as any other covariate in a regression or Gaussian process model. The authors support this by assembling known equivalences between weight-space linear regression and kernel-based Gaussian process regression, by invoking a theorem stating that any Gaussian vector can be viewed as a sample from a stationary process in a higher dimension, and by a demonstration in which land-surface-temperature samples are made to fit a stationary variogram after adding one learned extra coordinate. If the view is right, then choosing a trend, a stationary covariance, or a set of covariates is a modeling choice that changes interpretation, not a measurement of a geographic law.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on three connected pieces. First, the equivalence between weight-space Bayesian linear regression with a basis expansion $\phi(x)$ and function-space Gaussian process regression with covariance kernel $k(x,x')$, which lets geographic coordinates $s$ and other covariates $x$ be swapped freely as predictors in the paper's mixed model. Second, Theorem I (reference [36]): any real-valued covariance matrix on $s$ points can be realized as the restriction of a positive-definite stationary function on $\mathbb{R}^{s+d}$, so every finite non-stationary geographic sample can be embedded in a higher dimension where stationarity holds. Third, the dimension-expansion objective of Expression (8), which learns new coordinate values $Z'$ for each sample by minimizing the squared mismatch between observed semivariances $v^*_{ij}$ and a stationary Gaussian variogram $\gamma_\phi$ evaluated at distances $d_{ij}([X,Z'])$ in the augmented space; the fitted variogram then becomes the load-bearing evidence that the projection picture is real.

What would settle it

Look for a geospatial dataset in which non-stationarity persists after a generous set of meaningful covariates is added and after many extra dimensions are learned: if the augmented variogram still shows clear distance-dependent structure, or if the learned coordinates fail to match any plausible driver and fail to predict held-out measurements, the claim that such dimensions always exist loses its edge. A sharper check is the paper's own setup: learn one or several extra coordinates on the Amsterdam LST samples, then test whether those coordinates correspond to land-surface material and generalize to unheld locations, rather than merely re-encoding the observed temperatures.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery this paper is trying to establish is that geoinformation dependency properties are the projection, onto the low-dimensional geographic plane, of a high-dimensional feature space formed by all potential predictors. More specifically, any observed pattern—whether it looks stationary, trending, heterogeneous, or purely random in geographic space—can be reframed as a pattern in a higher-dimensional covariate space in which geographic coordinates are just two or three of the predictors; non-stationarity is then a compressed summary of unexplained variation along missing covariate dimensions. Drawing on Theorem I of the literature (cited as [36]), the paper asserts that with properly specified extra dimensions a stationary description can always be found, and it demonstrates this with a dimension-expansion fit to urban land-surface-temperature data, where a stationary Gaussian variogram fits the augmented distances once one extra coordinate is learned. The paper therefore concludes that treating autocorrelation as a law of geography, and drawing a sharp line between trend and random variation, reflects model choice rather than an intrinsic geographic property.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the premise that for every observed non-stationary geographic pattern there exist properly specified extra covariates that make the pattern stationary in a higher dimension, and that these covariates can actually be learned from the data rather than merely being a mathematical possibility.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Non-stationarity and heterogeneity in a geographic dataset become diagnostic signals: they point to missing covariates rather than to properties of space itself.
  • Geographic coordinates and other covariates can be put on equal footing in the modelling matrix of the paper, so a spatial model, a Gaussian process on non-spatial predictors, and a land-use regression are variants of one regression framework rather than competing paradigms.
  • The distinction between a deterministic trend and a random spatially correlated component depends on model specification; the same data can be described either way without changing the underlying explanation.
  • If enough covariate dimensions can be found and learned, a single stationary variogram in the augmented space should capture the dispersion of observed values, making trend removal and non-stationary covariance functions unnecessary.
  • Interpreting spatial autocorrelation as a law of geography reopens: 'near things are more related' is a compressed statement about the covariates that happen to be included in the model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension not developed in the paper: in a controlled dataset with known omitted drivers, adding those drivers to a Gaussian-process model should visibly reduce residual variogram noise and non-stationarity; if it does not, the projection claim needs qualification.
  • The single learned extra dimension in the Amsterdam demonstration may simply re-encode observed temperature values rather than a meaningful driver; a stronger check would learn several dimensions, inspect their correspondence to land cover or other covariates, and validate them on held-out locations.
  • The equivalence also suggests a practical diagnostic routine: compare variograms before and after dimension expansion as a scanner for missing covariates, rather than treating spatial correlation as irreducible noise.
  • If the view generalizes, it extends beyond geography: any low-dimensional projection of a high-dimensional process risks being misread as an intrinsic law of that low-dimensional space.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that geographic dependency, including spatial autocorrelation, heterogeneity, and non-stationarity, should not be understood as an intrinsic property of geographic space. Instead, it proposes that observed geographic patterns are projections of a higher-dimensional covariate space onto the lower-dimensional geographic coordinate space, and that geographic coordinates are just one set of predictors among many. The paper builds this argument by reviewing the equivalence between ordinary linear regression in a feature space and Gaussian process regression, by arranging these modeling choices in a two-by-two matrix with geographic and non-geographic covariates, and by invoking a theorem of Perrin and Schlather to claim that any stochastic process can be viewed as stationary in higher dimensions. A demonstration with land surface temperature data from Amsterdam learns one additional coordinate for each sample by minimizing the mismatch between observed semivariances and a stationary Gaussian variogram, and the paper interprets the resulting stationary fit as support for its central claim.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would provide a useful conceptual reframing of the first law of geography and of the role of stationarity in geostatistics, connecting geographic dependency with covariate-based modeling and dimension-expansion methods. The paper has genuine strengths: the equivalence between the weight perspective of linear regression and the function perspective of Gaussian process regression is standard and correctly presented; the two-by-two modeling matrix in Figure 2 is a clear pedagogical device; and the paper draws attention to an important and often unstated distinction between modeling choices and substantive interpretations of geographic pattern. The attempt to connect the Perrin-Schlater dimension-expansion result to a concrete geographic example is also valuable as an illustration. However, the strong ontological conclusion of the paper is not supported by the cited theorem or by the demonstration in Section 3.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Theorem I paragraph] The paper states that 'any random process is a sample of a stationary process in high dimension' and then uses this to conclude that non-stationarity in geographic space is essentially unexplained variation from other covariates. This overstates the cited result of Perrin and Schlather, which applies to any finite real-valued covariance matrix, equivalently to a finite Gaussian vector, and guarantees existence of a stationary Gaussian process on a higher-dimensional Euclidean space; it does not apply to arbitrary data-generating processes with continuous index sets, nor does it guarantee that the extra coordinates correspond to real, measurable predictors. This distinction is load-bearing because the paper's central claim depends on the extra dimensions being interpretable as covariates rather than as a purely mathematical embedding. The authors should restate the theorem accurately for finite Gaussian samples and explicitly discuss what additional assumptions are needed to extrapolate to real spatial processes.
  2. [Section 3, Expression (8) and Figures 5-6] The Amsterdam demonstration is circular as evidence for the central claim. Expression (8) optimizes the new coordinates Z' to minimize the squared difference between observed semivariances and a stationary variogram gamma_phi, so the stationary fit shown in Figure 5 is a property of the objective rather than a discovery from the data. The paper itself observes that the learned dimension resembles the LST values, confirming that an unconstrained latent coordinate can simply absorb the response variation. To support the claim that meaningful covariates make geographic dependence non-intrinsic, the authors would need to validate the learned dimensions out of sample, compare against known covariates, constrain the number of extra dimensions and variogram hyperparameters, or test whether the learned coordinates correspond to independently measurable variables. As written, the experiment cannot distinguish the hypothesis 'unobserved covariates explain the pattern' from the hypothesis 'a flexible latent coordinate absorbs the non-stationarity.'
  3. [Section 2, Expressions (4)-(7) and Figure 2] The paper conflates a modeling equivalence with an ontological conclusion. The fact that ordinary linear regression with basis functions and Gaussian process regression can be formulated in equivalent predictive terms shows that geographic coordinates and other covariates can play formally similar roles as predictors, but it does not establish that geographic dependency is 'essentially' a projection of high-dimensional covariate variation or that such dependency is not a property of geographic space. The authors should state explicitly that the equivalence is a modeling equivalence and then provide a separate, falsifiable argument for the stronger claim that geographic dependency is not intrinsic.
  4. [Section 3, 'number of x must be chosen arbitrarily'] The number of extra dimensions is a free parameter that the authors set to one without a selection criterion, and the variogram hyperparameters gamma_0 and a are also fitted rather than independently fixed. Because the demonstration is purely in-sample and admits these free parameters, a good fit is expected and does not by itself provide evidence for the proposed framework. The authors should report sensitivity to these choices and, if possible, a model-selection or validation procedure.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, first paragraph] The phrase 'there is alway a hyperplane' contains a typo and should read 'there is always a hyperplane'.
  2. [Section 3, paragraph after Expression (8)] The sentence describing the four-dimensional space says 'the two dimensions of geographic coordinates slat,slon, and the dimension of their observed LST values x', while x was previously used for the new covariate dimension; this notation is confusing and should be clarified.
  3. [Section 2, Expression (7)] The sentence 'f is explained by some predictor x1 while autocorrelated with itself as a combination of existing noisy observations weighted by covariance function defined on x2' is grammatically and conceptually unclear and should be rewritten.
  4. [Section 3, Expression (8) implementation] The paper does not describe the optimization algorithm, initialization, or software used for Expression (8), nor does it provide code or data; adding these details would improve reproducibility and allow readers to assess the stability of the learned dimension.
  5. [Section 4] The final remarks raise the question 'Whether non-stationarity, trends or even dependency should be considered as properties intrinsic to geographic space?' but the paper does not provide a clear operational definition of 'intrinsic'; defining this term would sharpen the argument.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The Section 3 demonstration is circular: the new coordinate is learned to force a stationary variogram, then the forced fit is offered as a visual proof.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3, Expression (8) and the paragraph after Figure 5]
    "both x as new locations and parameter ϕ of γ can be learnt by: ˆϕ, Z = arg min ... (8) ... Once the optimization, or minimization in Expression (8) returns the optimal x, we could be able to visualize the high dimensional variogram fit to the data as shown in Figure 5 below, where the sample data points converged towards the stationary variogram function stipulated in Expression (9). Hence, a visual proof of Figure 2 and also Theorem I is reached as well."

    The extra-dimension locations Z′ and the variogram parameters φ are exactly the free variables minimized in Eq. (8), with objective Σ(v*_{ij} − γ_φ(d_{ij}([X,Z′])))². The objective is the squared difference between the observed semivariances and the stationary variogram evaluated in the augmented space. Thus the 'convergence' displayed in Figure 5 is the value of the objective at its optimum, not an independent finding or prediction. Z′ is not a measured covariate, and no held-out check or external validation is offered; the paper itself notes that the learned elevations 'resembles ... the temperature values themselves,' i.e., the fitted dimension is a transformation of the response.

full rationale

Most of the paper's derivations are not circular: the equivalence between the weight perspective and the function perspective of Gaussian process regression is a standard external result (Rasmussen & Williams), and Theorem I is cited from independent work by Perrin and Schlather rather than from the authors. However, the single load-bearing demonstration in Section 3 is circular: the new coordinate is optimized to minimize exactly the deviation from a stationary variogram (Expression 8), and the fitted stationary variogram is then presented as a 'visual proof.' The paper even acknowledges that the learned dimension resembles the response itself. This is a fitted input presented as evidence, so the central empirical support for the claim is partially forced. The score is 6 rather than higher because the conceptual framework is anchored in independent theorems; the circularity is in the demonstration, not in the whole derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on one external theorem plus two domain assumptions; the demonstration introduces fitted latent coordinates and fitted variogram parameters. No new physical entities or forces are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • Number of extra dimensions in dimension expansion = 1 (chosen arbitrarily)
    The paper states the number of new covariate dimensions must be chosen arbitrarily and explores one extra dimension only (Section 3).
  • Gaussian variogram parameters gamma_0 and a = Not reported
    Fitted by minimizing Expression (8); these shape parameters are tuned to the 20 LST samples.
  • Learned extra-dimension coordinates for each sample = Not reported
    Values along the new covariate are optimized to make the high-dimensional variogram stationary; they are fitted, not measured.
assumptions (3)
  • standard math Any finite Gaussian vector can be embedded as a sample from a stationary process in higher dimension (Theorem I, Perrin and Schlather 2007).
    Cited theorem used to argue non-stationarity is a projection of higher-dimensional stationarity; accepted if the cited proof is correct, but the paper extends it beyond finite Gaussian samples.
  • domain assumption Unexplained variation along one covariate dimension is taken up by other covariates; with enough covariates, variations become stationary along all dimensions.
    Stated as a bullet 'proof' in Section 1 and used throughout; it is a philosophical and idealizing assumption, not derived in the paper.
  • domain assumption Geographic coordinates can be treated equivalently to other predictors in modelling geospatial patterns.
    Core framing inherited from the GP/regression equivalence; it is a modelling convention rather than an empirical fact.
invented entities (1)
  • Learned extra dimension (new covariate positions) in dimension expansion
    purpose: Added to geographic coordinates so the LST sample variogram becomes stationary in higher-dimensional space.
    The values are optimized to fit the observed data (Expression 8) and are not validated against any external measurement; the paper itself notes they resemble the target temperatures, so they are an invented latent variable rather than a discovered covariate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Geoinformation dependencies in geographic space and beyond." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GN2NK27H

@misc{pith2026250501260,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Geoinformation dependencies in geographic space and beyond},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GN2NK27H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.01260}
}
read the original abstract

The use of geospatially dependent information, which has been stipulated as a law in geography, to model geographic patterns forms the cornerstone of geostatistics, and has been inherited in many data science based techniques as well, such as statistical learning algorithms. Still, we observe hesitations in interpreting geographic dependency scientifically as a property in geography, since interpretations of such dependency are subject to model choice with different hypotheses of trends and stationarity. Rather than questioning what can be considered as trends or why it is non-stationary, in this work, we share and consolidate a view that the properties of geographic dependency, being it trending or stationary, are essentially variations can be explained further by unobserved or unknown predictors, and not intrinsic to geographic space. Particularly, geoinformation dependency properties are in fact a projection of high dimensional feature space formed by all potential predictors into the lower dimension of geographic space, where geographic coordinates are equivalent to other predictors for modelling geographic patterns. This work brings together different aspects of geographic dependency, including similarity and heterogeneity, under a coherent framework, and aligns with the understanding of modelling in high dimensional feature space with different modelling concept including the classical geostatistics, Gaussian Process Regression and popular data science based spatial modelling techniques.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.01260 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Classic variogram (a) and correlogram (b) examples (modified from [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Framing together the options of using GP- and OL-based regressions, as well as geographic locations and other [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The land surface temperature (LST) of city of Amsterdam in the Netherlands is used as the study case, where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Semivariance scatterplot of the sampled LST values as a function of geographic distance. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Semivariance scatterplot of the sampled LST values as a function of high dimensional distance extended by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The learnt location values superimposed on the original LST map (left), and an interpolated location map of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A history of the concept of spatial autocorrelation: A geographer’s perspective

    Arthur Getis. A history of the concept of spatial autocorrelation: A geographer’s perspective. Geographical analysis, 40(3):297–309, 2008

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    What is spatial autocorrelation? reflections on the past 25 years of spatial statistics

    Daniel A Griffith. What is spatial autocorrelation? reflections on the past 25 years of spatial statistics. L’Espace géographique, pages 265–280, 1992

    work page 1992

  3. [3]

    Spatial autocorrelation

    Daniel A Griffith. Spatial autocorrelation. International encyclopedia of human geography, 2009:308–316, 2009

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    What problem? spatial autocorrelation and geographic information science

    Michael F Goodchild. What problem? spatial autocorrelation and geographic information science. Geographical analysis, 41(4):411–417, 2009

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Random associations on a lattice

    Patrick AP Moran. Random associations on a lattice. InMathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, volume 43, pages 321–328. Cambridge University Press, 1947

    work page 1947

  6. [6]

    The interpretation of statistical maps

    Patrick AP Moran. The interpretation of statistical maps. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 10(2):243–251, 1948

    work page 1948

  7. [7]

    Spatial autocorrelation

    Andrew David Cliff and J Keith Ord. Spatial autocorrelation. London, Pion, 1973

    work page 1973

  8. [8]

    A computer movie simulating urban growth in the detroit region

    Waldo R Tobler. A computer movie simulating urban growth in the detroit region. Economic geography, 46(sup1):234–240, 1970

    1970

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    On the first law of geography: A reply

    Waldo Tobler. On the first law of geography: A reply. Annals of the association of American geographers , 94(2):304–310, 2004

    2004

  2. [10]

    Isaaks and R

    Edward H. Isaaks and R. Mohan Srivastava. Applied geostatistics. Oxford University Press, New York, 1989

    1989

  3. [11]

    Kriging: a method of interpolation for geographical information systems

    Margaret A Oliver and Richard Webster. Kriging: a method of interpolation for geographical information systems. International Journal of Geographical Information System, 4(3):313–332, 1990

    1990

  4. [12]

    Introduction to geostatistics and variogram analysis

    Geoff Bohling. Introduction to geostatistics and variogram analysis. Kansas geological survey, 1(10):1–20, 2005

    2005

  5. [13]

    The validity and usefulness of laws in geographic information science and geography

    Michael F Goodchild. The validity and usefulness of laws in geographic information science and geography. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 94(2):300–303, 2004

    2004

  6. [14]

    Correlation induced by missing spatial covariates: a connection between variance components models and kriging

    Jessica Rothman, Monica C Jackson, Kimberly F Sellers, Talithia Williams, Subhash R Lele, and Lance A Waller. Correlation induced by missing spatial covariates: a connection between variance components models and kriging. Journal of Mathematics and Statistical Science, 5(12):3...

    2019

  7. [15]

    Impacts of climate factors and human activities on ndvi change in china

    Lina Tuoku, Zhijian Wu, and Baohui Men. Impacts of climate factors and human activities on ndvi change in china. Ecological Informatics, 81:102555, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    To be or not to be

    Donald E Myers. To be or not to be... stationary? that is the question. Mathematical Geology, 21:347–362, 1989

    1989

  9. [17]

    Challenges in spatial analysis

    Michael F Goodchild. Challenges in spatial analysis. The SAGE Handbook of spatial analysis, pages 465–480, 2009

    2009

  10. [18]

    Detrending non stationary data for geostatistical applications

    Sidney Rosa Vieira, José Ruy Porto de Carvalho, Marcos Bacis Ceddia, and Antonio Paz González. Detrending non stationary data for geostatistical applications. Bragantia, 69:01–08, 2010

    2010

  11. [19]

    The geography of parameter space: an inves- tigation of spatial non-stationarity

    A Stewart Fotheringham, Martin Charlton, and Chris Brunsdon. The geography of parameter space: an inves- tigation of spatial non-stationarity. International journal of geographical information systems, 10(5):605–627, 1996

    1996

  12. [20]

    Nonstationary covariance functions for gaussian process regression

    Christopher Paciorek and Mark Schervish. Nonstationary covariance functions for gaussian process regression. Advances in neural information processing systems, 16, 2003

    2003

  13. [21]

    Spatial modelling using a new class of nonstationary covariance functions

    Christopher J Paciorek and Mark J Schervish. Spatial modelling using a new class of nonstationary covariance functions. Environmetrics: The official journal of the International Environmetrics Society, 17(5):483–506, 2006

    2006

  14. [22]

    Nonstationary covariance models for global data

    Mikyoung Jun and Michael L Stein. Nonstationary covariance models for global data. 2008

    2008

  15. [23]

    Tobler’s law in a multivariate world

    Luc Anselin and Xun Li. Tobler’s law in a multivariate world. Geographical Analysis, 52(4):494–510, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Spatial prediction based on third law of geography

    A-Xing Zhu, Guonian Lu, Jing Liu, Cheng-Zhi Qin, and Chenghu Zhou. Spatial prediction based on third law of geography. Annals of GIS, 24(4):225–240, 2018. 11 Geoinformation dependencies in geographic space and beyond. May, 2025

    2018

  17. [25]

    Applied spatial econometrics: raising the bar

    J Paul Elhorst. Applied spatial econometrics: raising the bar. Spatial economic analysis, 5(1):9–28, 2010

    2010

  18. [26]

    Spatial nonstationarity and autoregressive models

    Chris Brunsdon, A Stewart Fotheringham, and Martin Charlton. Spatial nonstationarity and autoregressive models. Environment and Planning A, 30(6):957–973, 1998

    1998

  19. [27]

    Carl Edward Rasmussen and Christopher K. I. Williams. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. The MIT Press, 2006

    2006

  20. [28]

    Introduction to gaussian processes

    David JC MacKay et al. Introduction to gaussian processes. NATO ASI series F computer and systems sciences, 168:133–166, 1998

    1998

  21. [29]

    David J. C. MacKay. Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms. Copyright Cambridge University Press, 2003

    2003

  22. [30]

    Kleijnen

    J.P.C. Kleijnen. Kriging: Methods and applications. Workingpaper, CentER, Center for Economic Research, November 2017

    2017

  23. [31]

    Traditional kriging versus modern gaussian processes for large-scale mining data

    Ryan B Christianson, Ryan M Pollyea, and Robert B Gramacy. Traditional kriging versus modern gaussian processes for large-scale mining data. Statistical Analysis and Data Mining: The ASA Data Science Journal , 16(5):488–506, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Re-thinking spatial confounding in spatial linear mixed models

    Kori Khan and Candace Berrett. Re-thinking spatial confounding in spatial linear mixed models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.05743, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    How is the third law of geography different? Annals of GIS, 28(1):57–67, 2022

    A-Xing Zhu and Matthew Turner. How is the third law of geography different? Annals of GIS, 28(1):57–67, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    A review of land-use regression models for characterizing intraurban air pollution exposure

    Patrick H Ryan and Grace K LeMasters. A review of land-use regression models for characterizing intraurban air pollution exposure. Inhalation toxicology, 19(sup1):127–133, 2007

    2007

  27. [35]

    A review of land-use regression models to assess spatial variation of outdoor air pollution

    Gerard Hoek, Rob Beelen, Kees De Hoogh, Danielle Vienneau, John Gulliver, Paul Fischer, and David Briggs. A review of land-use regression models to assess spatial variation of outdoor air pollution. Atmospheric environment, 42(33):7561–7578, 2008

    2008

  28. [36]

    Can any multivariate gaussian vector be interpreted as a sample from a stationary random process? Statistics & probability letters, 77(9):881–884, 2007

    Olivier Perrin and Martin Schlather. Can any multivariate gaussian vector be interpreted as a sample from a stationary random process? Statistics & probability letters, 77(9):881–884, 2007

    2007

  29. [37]

    Nonstationarity in rn is second-order stationarity in r2n

    Olivier Perrin and Wendy Meiring. Nonstationarity in rn is second-order stationarity in r2n. Journal of applied probability, 40(3):815–820, 2003

    2003

  30. [38]

    Modeling nonstationary processes through dimension expansion

    Luke Bornn, Gavin Shaddick, and James V Zidek. Modeling nonstationary processes through dimension expansion. Journal of the American statistical association, 107(497):281–289, 2012

    2012

  31. [39]

    Landsat 8-9 collection 2 (c2) level 2 science product (l2sp) guide

    USGS Landsat. Landsat 8-9 collection 2 (c2) level 2 science product (l2sp) guide. United States Geological Survey: Asheville, NC, USA, pages 1–42, 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    Satellite-derived land surface temperature: Current status and perspectives

    Zhao-Liang Li, Bo-Hui Tang, Hua Wu, Huazhong Ren, Guangjian Yan, Zhengming Wan, Isabel F Trigo, and José A Sobrino. Satellite-derived land surface temperature: Current status and perspectives. Remote sensing of environment, 131:14–37, 2013

    2013

  33. [41]

    Exploring indicators for quantifying surface urban heat islands of european cities with modis land surface temperatures

    Nina Schwarz, Sven Lautenbach, and Ralf Seppelt. Exploring indicators for quantifying surface urban heat islands of european cities with modis land surface temperatures. Remote Sensing of Environment, 115(12):3175–3186, 2011

    2011

  34. [42]

    Kriging nonstationary data

    Noel Cressie. Kriging nonstationary data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81(395):625–634, 1986

    1986

  35. [43]

    Kriging convolutional networks

    Gabriel Appleby, Linfeng Liu, and Li-Ping Liu. Kriging convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 34, pages 3187–3194, 2020

    2020

  36. [44]

    Geographical random forests: a spatial extension of the random forest algorithm to address spatial heterogeneity in remote sensing and population modelling

    Stefanos Georganos, Tais Grippa, Assane Niang Gadiaga, Catherine Linard, Moritz Lennert, Sabine Vanhuysse, Nicholus Mboga, Eléonore Wolff, and Stamatis Kalogirou. Geographical random forests: a spatial extension of the random forest algorithm to address spatial heterogeneity i...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.