为什么根据遥感数据预测的生态系统特征既无偏见又有偏差?

IF 3.8 1区 农林科学 Q1 FORESTRY Forest Ecosystems Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.fecs.2023.100164
Göran Ståhl , Terje Gobakken , Svetlana Saarela , Henrik J. Persson , Magnus Ekström , Sean P. Healey , Zhiqiang Yang , Johan Holmgren , Eva Lindberg , Kenneth Nyström , Emanuele Papucci , Patrik Ulvdal , Hans Ole Ørka , Erik Næsset , Zhengyang Hou , Håkan Olsson , Ronald E. McRoberts
{"title":"为什么根据遥感数据预测的生态系统特征既无偏见又有偏差?","authors":"Göran Ståhl ,&nbsp;Terje Gobakken ,&nbsp;Svetlana Saarela ,&nbsp;Henrik J. Persson ,&nbsp;Magnus Ekström ,&nbsp;Sean P. Healey ,&nbsp;Zhiqiang Yang ,&nbsp;Johan Holmgren ,&nbsp;Eva Lindberg ,&nbsp;Kenneth Nyström ,&nbsp;Emanuele Papucci ,&nbsp;Patrik Ulvdal ,&nbsp;Hans Ole Ørka ,&nbsp;Erik Næsset ,&nbsp;Zhengyang Hou ,&nbsp;Håkan Olsson ,&nbsp;Ronald E. McRoberts","doi":"10.1016/j.fecs.2023.100164","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Remotely sensed data are frequently used for predicting and mapping ecosystem characteristics, and spatially explicit wall-to-wall information is sometimes proposed as the best possible source of information for decision-making. However, wall-to-wall information typically relies on model-based prediction, and several features of model-based prediction should be understood before extensively relying on this type of information. One such feature is that model-based predictors can be considered both unbiased and biased at the same time, which has important implications in several areas of application. In this discussion paper, we first describe the conventional model-unbiasedness paradigm that underpins most prediction techniques using remotely sensed (or other) auxiliary data. From this point of view, model-based predictors are typically unbiased. Secondly, we show that for specific domains, identified based on their true values, the same model-based predictors can be considered biased, and sometimes severely so.</p><p>We suggest distinguishing between <em>conventional model-bias</em>, defined in the statistical literature as the difference between the expected value of a predictor and the expected value of the quantity being predicted, and <em>design-bias of model-based estimators</em>, defined as the difference between the expected value of a model-based estimator and the true value of the quantity being predicted. We show that model-based estimators (or predictors) are typically design-biased, and that there is a trend in the design-bias from overestimating small true values to underestimating large true values. Further, we give examples of applications where this is important to acknowledge and to potentially make adjustments to correct for the design-bias trend. We argue that relying entirely on conventional model-unbiasedness may lead to mistakes in several areas of application that use predictions from remotely sensed data.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54270,"journal":{"name":"Forest Ecosystems","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2197562023000957/pdfft?md5=3d52e349334563b51d3684560ba068f5&pid=1-s2.0-S2197562023000957-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why ecosystem characteristics predicted from remotely sensed data are unbiased and biased at the same time – and how this affects applications\",\"authors\":\"Göran Ståhl ,&nbsp;Terje Gobakken ,&nbsp;Svetlana Saarela ,&nbsp;Henrik J. Persson ,&nbsp;Magnus Ekström ,&nbsp;Sean P. Healey ,&nbsp;Zhiqiang Yang ,&nbsp;Johan Holmgren ,&nbsp;Eva Lindberg ,&nbsp;Kenneth Nyström ,&nbsp;Emanuele Papucci ,&nbsp;Patrik Ulvdal ,&nbsp;Hans Ole Ørka ,&nbsp;Erik Næsset ,&nbsp;Zhengyang Hou ,&nbsp;Håkan Olsson ,&nbsp;Ronald E. McRoberts\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.fecs.2023.100164\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Remotely sensed data are frequently used for predicting and mapping ecosystem characteristics, and spatially explicit wall-to-wall information is sometimes proposed as the best possible source of information for decision-making. However, wall-to-wall information typically relies on model-based prediction, and several features of model-based prediction should be understood before extensively relying on this type of information. One such feature is that model-based predictors can be considered both unbiased and biased at the same time, which has important implications in several areas of application. In this discussion paper, we first describe the conventional model-unbiasedness paradigm that underpins most prediction techniques using remotely sensed (or other) auxiliary data. From this point of view, model-based predictors are typically unbiased. Secondly, we show that for specific domains, identified based on their true values, the same model-based predictors can be considered biased, and sometimes severely so.</p><p>We suggest distinguishing between <em>conventional model-bias</em>, defined in the statistical literature as the difference between the expected value of a predictor and the expected value of the quantity being predicted, and <em>design-bias of model-based estimators</em>, defined as the difference between the expected value of a model-based estimator and the true value of the quantity being predicted. We show that model-based estimators (or predictors) are typically design-biased, and that there is a trend in the design-bias from overestimating small true values to underestimating large true values. Further, we give examples of applications where this is important to acknowledge and to potentially make adjustments to correct for the design-bias trend. We argue that relying entirely on conventional model-unbiasedness may lead to mistakes in several areas of application that use predictions from remotely sensed data.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54270,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Forest Ecosystems\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2197562023000957/pdfft?md5=3d52e349334563b51d3684560ba068f5&pid=1-s2.0-S2197562023000957-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Forest Ecosystems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2197562023000957\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"FORESTRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forest Ecosystems","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2197562023000957","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FORESTRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

遥感数据经常被用于预测和绘制生态系统特征图,空间明确的墙到墙信息有时被认为是决策所需的最佳信息来源。然而,墙到墙信息通常依赖于基于模型的预测,在广泛依赖这类信息之前,应了解基于模型预测的几个特点。其中一个特点是,基于模型的预测结果既可以被认为是无偏的,也可以同时被认为是有偏的,这对多个应用领域都有重要影响。在本讨论文件中,我们首先介绍了传统的模型无偏性范式,这种范式是大多数使用遥感(或其他)辅助数据的预测技术的基础。从这个角度看,基于模型的预测通常是无偏的。我们建议区分传统的模型偏差和基于模型的估计器设计偏差,前者在统计文献中被定义为预测器的预期值与被预测量的预期值之间的差异,后者被定义为基于模型的估计器的预期值与被预测量的真实值之间的差异。我们表明,基于模型的估计器(或预测器)通常具有设计偏差,而且设计偏差有从高估小真实值到低估大真实值的趋势。此外,我们还举例说明了在哪些应用中必须认识到这一点,并做出可能的调整来纠正设计偏差趋势。我们认为,完全依赖传统的模型无偏性,可能会在使用遥感数据预测的多个应用领域中导致错误。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Why ecosystem characteristics predicted from remotely sensed data are unbiased and biased at the same time – and how this affects applications

Remotely sensed data are frequently used for predicting and mapping ecosystem characteristics, and spatially explicit wall-to-wall information is sometimes proposed as the best possible source of information for decision-making. However, wall-to-wall information typically relies on model-based prediction, and several features of model-based prediction should be understood before extensively relying on this type of information. One such feature is that model-based predictors can be considered both unbiased and biased at the same time, which has important implications in several areas of application. In this discussion paper, we first describe the conventional model-unbiasedness paradigm that underpins most prediction techniques using remotely sensed (or other) auxiliary data. From this point of view, model-based predictors are typically unbiased. Secondly, we show that for specific domains, identified based on their true values, the same model-based predictors can be considered biased, and sometimes severely so.

We suggest distinguishing between conventional model-bias, defined in the statistical literature as the difference between the expected value of a predictor and the expected value of the quantity being predicted, and design-bias of model-based estimators, defined as the difference between the expected value of a model-based estimator and the true value of the quantity being predicted. We show that model-based estimators (or predictors) are typically design-biased, and that there is a trend in the design-bias from overestimating small true values to underestimating large true values. Further, we give examples of applications where this is important to acknowledge and to potentially make adjustments to correct for the design-bias trend. We argue that relying entirely on conventional model-unbiasedness may lead to mistakes in several areas of application that use predictions from remotely sensed data.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Forest Ecosystems
Forest Ecosystems Environmental Science-Nature and Landscape Conservation
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
4.90%
发文量
1115
审稿时长
22 days
期刊介绍: Forest Ecosystems is an open access, peer-reviewed journal publishing scientific communications from any discipline that can provide interesting contributions about the structure and dynamics of "natural" and "domesticated" forest ecosystems, and their services to people. The journal welcomes innovative science as well as application oriented work that will enhance understanding of woody plant communities. Very specific studies are welcome if they are part of a thematic series that provides some holistic perspective that is of general interest.
期刊最新文献
Independent and interactive effects of N and P additions on foliar P fractions in evergreen forests of southern China Meta-analysis of 21st century studies shows that deforestation induces profound changes in soil characteristics, particularly soil organic carbon accumulation Unveiling urbanization effects on trees outside forests along the urban-rural gradient in megacity Bengaluru Quercus acutissima exhibits more adaptable water uptake patterns in response to seasonal changes compared to Pinus massoniana Effects of bamboo invasion on forest structures and diameter–height allometries
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1