Comparing spatial regression to random forests for large environmental data sets
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

For very narrow results

When looking for a specific result

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields

Dates

to

Document Data
Library
People
Clear All
Clear All

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page

The NOAA IR serves as an archival repository of NOAA-published products including scientific findings, journal articles, guidelines, recommendations, or other information authored or co-authored by NOAA or funded partners. As a repository, the NOAA IR retains documents in their original published format to ensure public access to scientific information.
i

Comparing spatial regression to random forests for large environmental data sets

Filetype[PDF-2.14 MB]


Details Supporting Files You May Also Like

Details:

  • Journal Title:
    PLoS ONE
  • Personal Author:
  • NOAA Program & Office:
  • Description:
    Environmental data may be “large” due to number of records, number of covariates, or both. Random forests has a reputation for good predictive performance when using many covariates with nonlinear relationships, whereas spatial regression, when using reduced rank methods, has a reputation for good predictive performance when using many records that are spatially autocorrelated. In this study, we compare these two techniques using a data set containing the macroinvertebrate multimetric index (MMI) at 1859 stream sites with over 200 landscape covariates. A primary application is mapping MMI predictions and prediction errors at 1.1 million perennial stream reaches across the conterminous United States. For the spatial regression model, we develop a novel transformation procedure that estimates Box-Cox transformations to linearize covariate relationships and handles possibly zero-inflated covariates. We find that the spatial regression model with transformations, and a subsequent selection of significant covariates, has cross-validation performance comparable to random forests. We also find that prediction interval coverage is close to nominal for each method, but that spatial regression prediction intervals tend to be narrower and have less variability than quantile regression forest prediction intervals. A simulation study is used to generalize results and clarify advantages of each modeling approach.
  • Keywords:
  • Source:
    PLoSONE 15(3) 1-22
  • DOI:
  • Pubmed Central ID:
    PMC7089425
  • Document Type:
    Journal Article
  • Rights Information:
    CC0 1.0
  • Compliance:
    PMC
  • Main Document Checksum:
  • Download URL:
  • File Type:

Supporting Files

More +

You May Also Like

Checkout today's featured content at

Version 3.27.1