Discrete natural neighbour interpolation with uncertainty using cross-validation error-distance fields

PeerJ Comput Sci. 2020 Jul 13:6:e282. doi: 10.7717/peerj-cs.282. eCollection 2020.

Abstract

Interpolation techniques provide a method to convert point data of a geographic phenomenon into a continuous field estimate of that phenomenon, and have become a fundamental geocomputational technique of spatial and geographical analysts. Natural neighbour interpolation is one method of interpolation that has several useful properties: it is an exact interpolator, it creates a smooth surface free of any discontinuities, it is a local method, is spatially adaptive, requires no statistical assumptions, can be applied to small datasets, and is parameter free. However, as with any interpolation method, there will be uncertainty in how well the interpolated field values reflect actual phenomenon values. Using a method based on natural neighbour distance based rates of error calculated for data points via cross-validation, a cross-validation error-distance field can be produced to associate uncertainty with the interpolation. Virtual geography experiments demonstrate that given an appropriate number of data points and spatial-autocorrelation of the phenomenon being interpolated, the natural neighbour interpolation and cross-validation error-distance fields provide reliable estimates of value and error within the convex hull of the data points. While this method does not replace the need for analysts to use sound judgement in their interpolations, for those researchers for whom natural neighbour interpolation is the best interpolation option the method presented provides a way to assess the uncertainty associated with natural neighbour interpolations.

Keywords: Convex hull; Digital; Neighbor; Python; Raster; Sibson; Virtual geography experiments; Voronoi diagram.

Grants and funding

This work was supported by the Strategic Science Investment Funding for Crown Research Institutes from the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s Science and Innovation Group. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.