Comparing Bayesian spatial models: Goodness-of-smoothing criteria for assessing under- and over-smoothing

Many methods of spatial smoothing have been developed, for both point data as well as areal data. In Bayesian spatial models, this is achieved by purposefully designed prior(s) or smoothing functions which smooth estimates towards a local or global mean. Smoothing is important for several reasons, not least of all because it increases predictive robustness and reduces uncertainty of the estimates. Despite the benefits of smoothing, this attribute is all but ignored when it comes to model selection. Traditional goodness-of-fit measures focus on model fit and model parsimony, but neglect "goodness-of-smoothing", and are therefore not necessarily good indicators of model performance. Comparing spatial models while taking into account the degree of spatial smoothing is not straightforward because smoothing and model fit can be viewed as opposing goals. Over- and under-smoothing of spatial data are genuine concerns, but have received very little attention in the literature.

This paper demonstrates the problem with spatial model selection based solely on goodness-of-fit by proposing several methods for quantifying the degree of smoothing. Several commonly used spatial models are fit to real data, and subsequently compared using the goodness-of-fit and goodness-of-smoothing statistics.

The proposed goodness-of-smoothing statistics show substantial agreement in the task of model selection, and tend to avoid models that over- or under-smooth. Conversely, the traditional goodness-of-fit criteria often don't agree, and can lead to poor model choice. In particular, the well-known deviance information criterion tended to select under-smoothed models.

Some of the goodness-of-smoothing methods may be improved with modifications and better guidelines for their interpretation. However, these proposed goodness-of-smoothing methods offer researchers a solution to spatial model selection which is easy to implement. Moreover, they highlight the danger in relying on goodness-of-fit measures when comparing spatial models.