Spatial Cross-Validation in Geographic Data Analysis

X: @ljmaldon | Personal website: www.leonardojmaldonado.com

Spatial relationships between data points are crucial in geographic data analysis. As datasets grow in size and complexity, traditional cross-validation methods often fall short of accurately predicting outcomes with high spatial correlation. This is where spatial cross-validation comes into play. Depending on the context and analysis, it may serve as a robust approach, accounting for the spatial arrangement of data during the model validation process. This blog post sheds light on its concept and how it works.

Understanding Spatial Cross-Validation

Spatial cross-validation is an adaptation of the traditional cross-validation method, and it was specifically created to handle spatially correlated data. In traditional cross-validation, data is randomly divided into k folds (or subsets), with one fold used for testing the model and the remaining folds used for training. This process is repeated k times, with each fold serving as the test set once, allowing an evaluation of the model's performance. However, this random partitioning can be problematic when dealing with spatial data. But, Why?

Spatial data points may not be independent of each other. Due to spatial autocorrelation, the value of one data point can be highly dependent on the values of nearby points, and traditional cross-validation does not account for this. Thus, randomly splitting data without considering spatial proximity can lead to overfitting, where the model performs well on the training data but poorly on unseen data, and inaccurate estimates of model performance. In other words, it's like preparing for a test only with the questions you already know the answers to. Sure, you'll ace that test, but when faced with new questions (or unseen data), the performance drops.

Spatial cross-validation addresses this issue by incorporating spatial information into the fold-splitting process, ensuring that proximate observations are grouped either in the training or the testing (validation) set, but not both. This approach may be particularly relevant in fields where spatial data plays a crucial role, respecting the structure of the data and providing a more accurate assessment of a model's predictive performance on new, unseen data.

Why Spatial Cross-Validation Matters?

In general, it addresses two main issues:

1. Overestimation of Model Performance => When observations are spatially linked, sticking to the usual cross-validation methods might lead to over-optimism, which means we might be too optimistic about how our model is doing. Spatially dividing the training and testing data gives us a clearer look at our model's predictive power.
2. Generalization to New Areas => Models trained on spatial data often need to predict outcomes for locations not included in the training dataset (i.e., "guess" what happens in places never "seen" during training). Spatial cross-validation improves the validation process to better simulate this situation, thus enhancing the model's applicability and reliability across different spatial contexts.

Step-by-Step Process of Spatial Cross-Validation

1. Acknowledge that observations located close to each other in space are more likely to have similar values (i.e., there may be spatial autocorrelation in the data).
2. The first operational step is data segregation based on spatial proximity to ensure that spatially close observations are either entirely in the training or validation set but not split between them. For example, by using geographic coordinates to create spatially coherent clusters
3. Creating k spatially disjoint folds, where each fold comprises data points spatially separated from those in the other folds. The clusters formed in the previous step can guide this division, ensuring that each fold represents distinct spatial data.
4. The model is then trained and validated in a k-fold manner, where for each iteration, k-1 folds are used for training the model, and the remaining fold is used for testing. The key distinction here is that, due to the spatial separation of the folds, the testing data will always be spatially independent of the training data.
5. After each fold serves as the test set once, the model's performance is iteratively evaluated across all folds to provide an overall assessment of the model’s predictive accuracy.
6. Finally, the results of spatial cross-validation offer valuable insights into the model's effectiveness across different spatial contexts. We can now carry out analysis by, for example, comparing the metrics from spatial cross-validation with those from traditional cross-validation methods to assess the impact of spatial autocorrelation on model predictions and thus adjust their modeling approaches accordingly.

Spatial cross-validation stands out as an important technique in analyzing spatial data. Although it is not a panacée (e.g., you must also be aware of literature noting the disadvantages of using this technique, such as Wadoux et al. 2021), it is another tool you should add to your analyst's portfolio and, depending on the context, consider it when seeking to unlock the full potential of geographic datasets.

If you found the time to read this post and consider it useful, please share it with your peers. You can leave comments and/or reach me to let me know your thoughts. Do not hesitate to contact me.