arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2305.07314

A comparison between Bayesian and ordinary kriging based on validation criteria: application to radiological characterisation

Martin Wieskotten·Marielle Crozet·Bertrand Iooss·Céline Lacaux·Amandine Marrel
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In decommissioning projects of nuclear facilities, the radiological characterisation step aims to estimate the quantity and spatial distribution of different radionuclides. To carry out the estimation, measurements are performed on site to obtain preliminary information. The usual industrial practice consists in applying spatial interpolation tools (as the ordinary kriging method) on these data to predict the value of interest for the contamination (radionuclide concentration, radioactivity, etc.) at unobserved positions. This paper questions the ordinary kriging tool on the well-known problem of the overoptimistic prediction variances due to not taking into account uncertainties on the estimation of the kriging parameters (variance and range). To overcome this issue, the practical use of the Bayesian kriging method, where the model parameters are considered as random variables, is deepened. The usefulness of Bayesian kriging, whilst comparing its performance to that of ordinary kriging, is demonstrated in the small data context (which is often the case in decommissioning projects). This result is obtained via several numerical tests on different toy models, and using complementary validation criteria: the predictivity coefficient (Q${}^2$), the Predictive Variance Adequacy (PVA), the $\alpha$-Confidence Interval plot (and its associated Mean Squared Error alpha (MSEalpha)), and the Predictive Interval Adequacy (PIA). The latter is a new criterion adapted to the Bayesian kriging results. Finally, the same comparison is performed on a real dataset coming from the decommissioning project of the CEA Marcoule G3 reactor. It illustrates the practical interest of Bayesian kriging in industrial radiological characterisation.

Explore related subjects

stat.MEmath.STstat.TH

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Martin Wieskotten, Marielle Crozet, Bertrand Iooss, Céline Lacaux, Amandine Marrel. 2023-05-12. A comparison between Bayesian and ordinary kriging based on validation criteria: application to radiological characterisation. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.07314

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗