Paper detail

Revisiting the random shift approach for testing in spatial statistics

We consider the problem of non-parametric testing of independence of two components of a stationary bivariate spatial process. In particular, we revisit the random shift approach that has become a standard method for testing the independent superposition hypothesis in spatial statistics, and it is widely used in a plethora of practical applications. However, this method has a problem of liberality caused by breaking the marginal spatial correlation structure due to the toroidal correction. This indeed causes that the assumption of exchangability, which is essential for the Monte Carlo test to be exact, is not fulfilled. We present a number of permutation strategies and show that the random shift with the variance correction brings a suitable improvement compared to the torus correction in the random field case. It reduces the liberality and achieves the largest power from all investigated variants. To obtain the variance for the variance correction method, several approaches were studied. The best results were achieved, for the sample covariance as the test statistics, with the correction factor $1/n$. This corresponds to the asymptotic order of the variance of the test statistics. In the point process case, the problem of deviations from exchangeability is far more complex and we propose an alternative strategy based on the mean cross nearest-neighbor distance and torus correction. It reduces the liberality but achieves slightly lower power than the usual cross $K$-function. Therefore we recommend it, when the point patterns are clustered, where the cross $K$-function achieves liberality.

preprint2019arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.