Marked Spatial Point Processes: Current State and Extensions to Point Processes on Linear Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Within the applications of spatial point processes, it is increasingly becoming common that events are labelled by marks, prompting an exploration beyond the spatial distribution of events by incorporating the marks in the undertaken analysis. In this paper, we first consider marked spatial point processes in $$\mathbb {R}^2$$ R2 , where marks are either integer-valued, real-valued, or object-valued, and review the state-of-the-art to analyze the spatial structure and type of interaction/correlation between marks. More specifically, we review cross/dot-type summary characteristics, mark-weighted summary characteristics, various mark correlation functions, and frequency domain approaches. We also propose novel cross/dot-type higher-order summary characteristics, mark-weighted summary characteristics, and mark correlation functions for marked point processes on linear networks. Through a simulation study, we show that ignoring the underlying network gives rise to erroneous conclusions about the interaction/correlation between marks. Finally, we consider two applications: the locations of two different proteins on the membranes of cells infected with the influenza virus and the locations of public trees along the street network of Vancouver, Canada, where trees are labelled by their diameters at breast height.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".