Statistical learning theory for geospatial data. Case study: Aral sea

In recent years there has been an explosive growth in the development of adaptive and data driven methods. One of the efficient and data-driven approaches is based on statistical learning theory (Vapnik 1998). The theory is based on Structural Risk Minimisation (SRM) principle and has a solid statistical background. When applying SRM we are trying not only to reduce training error ? to fit the available data with a model, but also to reduce the complexity of the model and to reduce generalisation error. Many nonlinear learning procedures recently developed in neural networks and statistics can be understood and interpreted in terms of the structural risk minimisation inductive principle. A recent methodology based on SRM is called Support Vector Machines (SVM). At present SLT is still under intensive development and SVM find new areas of application (www.kernel-machines.org). SVM develop robust and non linear data models with excellent generalisation abilities that is very important both for monitoring and forecasting. SVM are extremely good when input space is high dimensional and training data set i not big enough to develop corresponding nonlinear model. Moreover, SVM use only support vectors to derive decision boundaries. It opens a way to sampling optimization, estimation of noise in data, quantification of data redundancy etc. Presentation of SVM for spatially distributed data is given in (Kanevski and Maignan 2004).

The database search problem: a question of rational decision making

This paper applies probability and decision theory in the graphical interface of an influence diagram to study the formal requirements of rationality which justify the individualization of a person found through a database search. The decision-theoretic part of the analysis studies the parameters that a rational decision maker would use to individualize the selected person. The modeling part (in the form of an influence diagram) clarifies the relationships between this decision and the ingredients that make up the database search problem, i.e., the results of the database search and the different pairs of propositions describing whether an individual is at the source of the crime stain. These analyses evaluate the desirability associated with the decision of 'individualizing' (and 'not individualizing'). They point out that this decision is a function of (i) the probability that the individual in question is, in fact, at the source of the crime stain (i.e., the state of nature), and (ii) the decision maker's preferences among the possible consequences of the decision (i.e., the decision maker's loss function). We discuss the relevance and argumentative implications of these insights with respect to recent comments in specialized literature, which suggest points of view that are opposed to the results of our study.

Scale decisions can reverse conclusions on community assembly processes.

AIM: Phylogenetic diversity patterns are increasingly being used to better understand the role of ecological and evolutionary processes in community assembly. Here, we quantify how these patterns are influenced by scale choices in terms of spatial and environmental extent and organismic scales. LOCATION: European Alps. METHODS: We applied 42 sampling strategies differing in their combination of focal scales. For each resulting sub-dataset, we estimated the phylogenetic diversity of the species pools, phylogenetic α-diversities of local communities, and statistics commonly used together with null models in order to infer non-random diversity patterns (i.e. phylogenetic clustering versus over-dispersion). Finally, we studied the effects of scale choices on these measures using regression analyses. RESULTS: Scale choices were decisive for revealing signals in diversity patterns. Notably, changes in focal scales sometimes reversed a pattern of over-dispersion into clustering. Organismic scale had a stronger effect than spatial and environmental extent. However, we did not find general rules for the direction of change from over-dispersion to clustering with changing scales. Importantly, these scale issues had only a weak influence when focusing on regional diversity patterns that change along abiotic gradients. MAIN CONCLUSIONS: Our results call for caution when combining phylogenetic data with distributional data to study how and why communities differ from random expectations of phylogenetic relatedness. These analyses seem to be robust when the focus is on relating community diversity patterns to variation in habitat conditions, such as abiotic gradients. However, if the focus is on identifying relevant assembly rules for local communities, the uncertainty arising from a certain scale choice can be immense. In the latter case, it becomes necessary to test whether emerging patterns are robust to alternative scale choices.