Skip to content
Preprint

Kriging and Gaussian processes: interconnected frameworks for spatial modelling and prediction

Oct 2026 · 0 citations · 35 references
Mathematics

TL;DR

The underlying assumptions and formulations of each approach are detailed and compared within this framework and provides practitioners with a common foundation for translating concepts and methods between geostatistics and machine learning.

Abstract

Spatial modelling and inference arise across many areas of science and engineering, with Kriging and Gaussian process (GP) regression serving as two widely used predictive models. Although grounded in the same random field theory, these approaches are often treated in isolation. As a result, their connection has been obscured by differences in terminology, notation, and practical implementation. This separation largely reflects their independent development within geostatistics and machine learning, respectively. To bridge this methodological divide, this work establishes a unified mathematical framework that connects the two paradigms. The underlying assumptions and formulations of each approach are detailed and compared within this framework. This comparison highlights their differences while clarifying the connections between them. The resulting perspective provides practitioners with a common foundation for translating concepts and methods between geostatistics and machine learning. In particular, it makes methodological developments in either field more accessible to the other, including advances in uncertainty quantification from the GP literature.

View source

Similar papers

Preprint Oct 2026

Spatial Prediction with Guided Diffusion

Spatial prediction is a critically important task in data analyses that involve spatially or spatio-temporally-referenced data. It is commonly carried out using hierarchical models, which comprise a process model describing the latent process of interest, and a data model describing how the process is observed. The tar...

Andrew Zammit-Mangion, L. Astfalck, Raphael Huser et al. · 0 citations
Preprint Sep 2026

Cross Validation for the log Gaussian Cox Process

The log Gaussian Cox Process (LGCP) is one of the most widely used models for the analysis of spatial point patterns. Although Bayesian methods and software for fitting LGCPs are now well established, practical tools for model criticism, predictive assessment, and model comparison remain comparatively underdeveloped. T...

Hans Montcho, H. Rue, F. Lindgren et al. · 0 citations

From Equations to Geospatial Foundation models. What comes next for forest prediction?

GeoFMs extend this trajectory through large-scale self-supervised pretraining on Earth observation data, offering the potential to reduce dependence on task-specific labelled datasets and transfer learned representations across contexts and prediction tasks.

Unknown authors · 0 citations
Open access Sep 2026

3D Geological Modeling Using Geostatistical, Deterministic, and Artificial Intelligence Algorithms: A Comparative Analysis for Delineating Mineralized Zones

The delineation of mineralized zones within deposits is inherently associated with geological uncertainty, directly impacting resource-reserve estimation and eventual extraction. This study presents a comparative analysis of three geological modeling techniques, including Indicator Kriging (IK), Nearest Neighbor (NN),...

Nelson Jesús Ramos Armijos, Isidro Diego Álvarez, César Castañón Fernández · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.