Skip to content
Prev 3428 / 29559 Next

question about regression kriging

Hi,
Both Edzer's example (extreme case when prediction is at observation locations) and Tom's tech report (pg8 "note that the Eq.(19) looks very much like (17), except it will give slightly lower values") suggest that assuming independence of the two variances will give values that are too large, if so this is useful to know.

For the follow-up question: how to present the prediction uncertainty? I would follow the usual approach for a binary glm, calculate a confidence interval on the logit scale, then back-transform the limits to the 0,1 scale. If space to present mapped outputs is limited I plan to calculate the width of the confidence interval on the 0,1 scale and map this. 

Thanks again, this list is an excellent catalyst for learning
David
david.maxwell at cefas.co.uk

-----Original Message-----
From: Edzer Pebesma [mailto:edzer.pebesma at uni-muenster.de]
Sent: 09 April 2008 09:49
To: Tomislav Hengl
Cc: David Maxwell (Cefas); r-sig-geo at stat.math.ethz.ch
Subject: Re: [R-sig-Geo] question about regression kriging


Tom,

I'm afraid things are harder than you sketch. In glm's, the parameter 
estimation is done using iteratively reweighted least squares, where the 
weights depend on a variance function that links the variance of 
observations to the mean. So, observations (residuals) are assumed to be 
unstationary, in principle, and because of the mean-dependency this 
changes over the iterations. The equations and references you mention 
afaik all assume a known, and fixed variogram, and one-step solutions, 
no iteration.

Also, you falsly accuse me of claiming one cannot back-transform 
prediction variances. I did not claim this (I have seen suggestions on 
how to do this), I just asked how David would do this.
--
Edzer
Tomislav Hengl wrote:
***********************************************************************************
This email and any attachments are intended for the name...{{dropped:10}}