Survey Review

ISSN: 0039-6265 (Print) 1752-2706 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ysre20

Kriging and moving window kriging on a sphere in

geometric (GNSS/levelling) geoid modelling

M. Ligas & M. Kulczycki

To cite this article: M. Ligas & M. Kulczycki (2018) Kriging and moving window kriging on a
sphere in geometric (GNSS/levelling) geoid modelling, Survey Review, 50:359, 155-162, DOI:
10.1080/00396265.2016.1247131

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00396265.2016.1247131

Published online: 09 Nov 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 199

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ysre20
Kriging and moving window kriging on a sphere
in geometric (GNSS/levelling) geoid modelling
M. Ligas∗ and M. Kulczycki
A comparison of kriging and moving window kriging (MWK) on a sphere is performed on GNSS/
levelling data. The study was to give the answer on whether there is a significant gain in
prediction accuracy when we apply an MWK instead of ‘classical’ kriging and also to what
extent the use of global geopotential model EGM2008 improves prediction. The quality of
prediction for all kriging and data variants has been investigated on three regions (being on the
territory of the conterminous USA) characterised with a different spatial extent and density of
sampling. Numerical tests revealed that in case of high-sampling density there was no accuracy
gain when using MWK instead of classical kriging (cK). In contrast, for less numerous datasets
and a much larger spatial extent (low-sampling density) MWK adapts itself to data much better
than cK. Incorporation of EGM2008-based undulations as a long-wavelength trend for both
cases (classical and moving window) significantly improved prediction quality.
Keywords: Kriging, Moving window, Sphere, Covariogram, Geoid, EGM2008

Introduction basic variants, i.e. ‘classical’ kriging and moving window

Along with the advent of GPS positioning we have
observed an ever increasing interest in precise geoid
models in a local and/or regional scale aiming at replacing
geometric heights with respect to WGS84 reference ellip-
soid with orthometric heights (or normal heights depend-
ing on the height system used). Also, global geopotential
models become more and more accurate (e.g. EGM2008,
Kotsakis and Katsambalos 2010, Pavlis et al. 2012) and
constitute a very good base for creating local or regional
geoid models. Hence, the geoid determination both in a
global and a local scale has become one of the main
tasks in geodesy. One of the approaches to geoid model-
ling besides a gravimetric (based on gravity anomalies)
and an astrogeodetic (based on deflections of the vertical)
is a geometric one which is based on known geoid heights.
The geometric approach uses only ellipsoidal heights and
levelled heights measured on the same points (collocated
measurements), the difference between the two heights
gives the geoid undulation (geoid height) on a given
point (Heiskanen and Moritz 1967). The points with
known geoid heights are later used to predict (interpolate)
geoid heights on other points. For this purpose, many
interpolation methods may be used and the most often
met in the literature are: polynomial approximation for
relatively small areas (Featherstone et al. 1998), least
squares collocation (Moritz 1980) and recently artificial
neural networks (Kavzoglu and Saka 2005).
In this study, we investigate a prediction potential of
spherical kriging (kriging performed on a sphere) in two
kriging (MWK) for geometric (GNSS/levelling) geoid
modelling in a local or a regional scale. Kriging-based
prediction presented in this study uses raw geoid undula-
tion data (1) as well as residual undulation data (2)
obtained from raw undulations and undulations derived
from EGM2008 geopotential model:
N = h − Ho (1)
N RES = h − H o − N EGM2008 = N − N EGM2008 (2)
where N is the geoid undulation, h is the ellipsoidal height
with respect to WGS84 ellipsoid, H o is the orthometric
height with respect to NAVD88 vertical datum,
N EGM2008 is the EGM2008-based geoid undulation.
The study is to give the answer on whether there is a sig-
nificant gain in prediction accuracy when we apply an
MWK instead of ‘classical’ kriging and also to what
extent the use of global geopotential model EGM2008
improves the quality of prediction.
The paper begins with some theory for kriging predic-
tion in its classical form and a brief discussion on statio-
narity conditions necessary to construct kriging-based
predictors. Then we describe the idea behind an MWK
approach and how it captures local non-stationarity.
The next part is devoted to the differences between kri-
ging performed on a plane and kriging performed on a
sphere. After a theoretical background we describe
study areas and the data used in the study. Finally, the
results are shown and conclusions are drawn.

AGH University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Mining Surveying

and Environmental Engineering, Department of Geomatics, 30 Mickiewicza
Kriging
Al., 30-059 Krakow, Poland Geostatistical method of prediction – kriging is often
∗
Corresponding author, email: ligas@agh.edu.pl referred to ‘optimal linear prediction for spatial processes’

© 2016 Survey Review Ltd

Received 20 March 2016; accepted 7 October 2016
DOI 10.1080/00396265.2016.1247131 Survey Review 2018 VOL 50 NO 359 155
Ligas and Kulczycki Kriging and moving window kriging on a sphere in geometric geoid modelling

(Stein 1999). Owing to its versatility it has found a promi- Finally, we minimise equation (10) subject to the unbia-
nent place among prediction methods used in different sedness condition in equation (9) and this leads to the sys-
fields of science. There are two basic principles behind tem of equations to be solved for optimal coefficients λ
kriging, i.e. unbiasedness and minimisation of mean and a scalar Lagrange multiplier κ:
squared error of prediction, and thus it is equivalent to     
V 1 l v
the minimum error variance prediction. Here, we briefly = (11)
recall the basic facts concerning ordinary and universal 1T 0 k 1
kriging-based prediction (since these methods have been On the basis of optimised coefficients λ and a scalar κ, we
used in this study). We consider the following general obtain the ordinary kriging variance (prediction variance)
decomposition of a random field (collection of random of the form
variables, also a random function or a spatial stochastic
process): s2OK = s2 − lT v − k (12)


Z(s) = m(s) + 1(s) for observables Ordinary kriging predictor may be formulated explicitly
(3)
Z(s0 ) = m(s0 ) + 1(s0 ) for unobservables by using the inverse of the partitioned matrix on the
left-hand side of equation (11) and solving the system of
where Z(s) is a vector of observed quantities at locations s, equations for λ and κ. Hence, after some manipulations
μ(s) is a vector of means, either a constant (ordinary kri- one arrives at the explicit form of the predictor, i.e.
ging) or a location-dependent trend/drift (universal kri-
ging), ε(s) is a vector of spatially correlated disturbances, Ẑ(s0 ) = m̂ + vT V−1 [Z − 1m̂ ] with
Z(s0) is a single quantity to be predicted at a location s0, −1 −1 T −1
(13)
μ(s0) is mean value at a location s0, either a constant or m̂ = (1 V 1) 1 V Z
T

resulting from the adopted trend and ε(s0) is a disturbance and then the prediction variance reads
at a location s0, spatially correlated with disturbances ε(s).
We shall also assume the following stochastic charac- s2OK = s2 − vT V−1 v + (1 − vT V−1 1)
terisation, e.g. Goldberger (1962) (we drop a denotation (14)
of location ‘s’ that should not lead to any confusion): × (1T V−1 1)−1 (1 − vT V−1 1)T

E(1i ) = E(10 ) = 0 (4)

E(11T ) = V, E(110 ) = v,
(5)
E(120 ) = E(12i ) = s2
where E is the expected value operator, Ω is the covari-
ance matrix of disturbances (observables − observables),
ω is the covariance vector of disturbances (observables
− unobservable) and σ 2 is the variance of disturbances.
Ordinary kriging – constant and unknown
expected value of a random field
In ordinary kriging, we assume a constant but unknown
expected value of a random field thus the decomposition
in equation (3) may be expressed as

known basis functions (trend coefficients) and x is a vector
Z(s) = m + 1(s) for observables
(6)
Z(s0 ) = m + 1(s0 ) for unobservables
To find an optimal, in the mean squared sense, value of
Z(s0) = Z0 by means of known data Z(s) = Z, in ordinary
kriging we use a linear predictor of the form
Universal kriging – spatially varying expected
value (trend) of a random field
In universal kriging, we assume a location-dependent
mean value of a random field modelled as an unknown
linear combination of known basis functions (usually
polynomials of low order). Hence the decomposition in
equation (3) takes the form


Z(s) = m(s) + 1(s) = Xb + 1(s) for observables
Z(s0 ) = m(s0 ) + 1(s0 ) = xT b + 1(s0 ) for unobservables
(15)
where X is a matrix of known basis functions at observed
locations resulting from the adopted trend model, β is a vec-
tor of unknown coefficients of a linear combination of
of known basis functions at a location to be predicted.
To find an optimal, in the mean squared sense, value of
Z(s0) = Z0 by means of known data Z(s) = Z, in universal
kriging we use the same form of predictor as in ordinary
kriging, i.e.

Ẑ0 = lT Z (7) Ẑ0 = lT Z (16)

where λ is the vector of coefficients of a linear combi- Unbiasedness condition is obtained from the same con-
nation of data – ‘kriging weights’. dition – zero prediction error on average, i.e.
Unbiasedness condition is obtained from equating a E(e) = E(Ẑ0 − Z0 ) = 0 (17)
mean prediction error to zero, i.e.
This leads to the condition
E(e) = E(Ẑ0 − Z0 ) = 0 (8)
l T X = xT (18)
what leads to the condition
Further, we construct a mean squared error of prediction
lT 1 = 1 (9) which reads
Further, we construct a mean squared error of prediction E(eeT ) = lT Vl − 2lT v + s2 (19)
which is expressed as
Now, we minimise equation (19) subject to the unbiased-
E(eeT ) = lT Vl − 2lT v + s2 (10) ness condition in equation (18) and this leads to a system

156 Survey Review 2018 VOL 50 NO 359

 Ligas and Kulczycki Kriging and moving window kriging on a sphere in geometric geoid modelling
of equations to be solved for optimal coefficients λ and
Lagrange multipliers κ:
    
V X l v 2N(h) N(h)
= (20)
XT 0 k x
By the same token as in ordinary kriging case, we may
express universal kriging predictor explicitly as
Ẑ(s0 ) = xT b̂ + vT V−1 (Z − Xb̂) with
−1 −1
b̂ = (XT V X)−1 XT V Z
and the prediction variance
s2UK = s2 − vT V−1 v + (xT − vT V−1 X)
× (XT V−1 X)−1 (xT − vT V−1 X)T
Covariance structure
So far, nothing has been said on the covariance structure
of a random field stored in the covariance vectors and
matrices in the derivations contained in the previous sec-
tion. Derivation of kriging predictors is based on some
forms of stationarity of a random field. The most basic
forms of stationarity are the second-order stationarity
and intrinsic stationarity. From these forms of stationarity
two structure functions of a random function emerge. The
second-order stationarity introduces a covariance func-
tion and the intrinsic stationarity introduces a semi-var-
iance function. The two hypotheses of stationarity may
be stated as follows, e.g. Chiles and Delfiner (1999).
A random function is said to be second-order station-
ary if the following conditions hold
∀s[D E[Z(s)] = m
∀s1 ,s2 [D Cov[Z(s1 ), Z(s2 )]
= E{[Z(s1 ) − m][Z(s2 ) − m]} = C(h)
Expected value of a random function is constant in the
entire spatial domain D and the covariance function
depends only on the separation vector h = s2 – s1. The var-
iance of a random field is finite and equal to C(h) for
h = 0, i.e. C(0) = V[Z(s)].
A random function is said to be intrinsic stationary if
the two following conditions hold
∀s[D E[Z(s)] = m or E[Z(s1 ) − Z(s2 )] = 0
∀s1 ,s2 [D V [Z(s1 ) − Z(s2 )] = 2g(h)
Again, we have a constant mean value of a random pro-
cess but the second condition introduces a new function
2γ(h) – a variogram. If a random process is second-
order stationary, the two structure functions are equival-
ent, and the relation between the two functions may be
expressed as
g(h) = C(0) − C(h) = V [Z(s)] − C(h)
Furthermore, if a random function is isotropic, then
both covariance and semi-variance functions depend
only on the separation distance (this is the most common
case in practical applications), i.e.
C(h) = C(h) or g(h) = g(h)
These two functions are not given a priori hence they must
be estimated from data. The most common estimators are
based on the method of moments. The semi-variance
function estimator is given as
1 
ĝ (h) = [Z(si ) − Z(sj )]2 (27)
where N(h) is the number of data pairs separated by ‘h’,
Z(si), Z(sj) are measured/observed values at locations
si, sj, respectively, and a covariance function estimator
1 
(21) Ĉ(h) = [Z(si ) − Ẑ][Z(sj ) − Ẑ] with
N(h) N(h)
n (28)
Z(si )
Ẑ = i=1
n
(22) It is immediately noticeable that the semi-variance func-
tion does not involve the mean value of a random pro-
cess in the estimation procedure. This is the advantage
of using the semi-variogram over the covariogram
because we do not introduce additional bias related to
the unknown mean value of a random process. The use
of estimators leads to the construction of an empirical
structure function either a semi-variance function or a
covariance function. Later on an admissible (positive
definite or conditionally negative definite) continuous
function must be fitted to the empirical one. A review
of admissible structure functions (on a plane) the inter-
ested reader may find in, e.g. Schlather (2015), Chiles
and Delfiner (1999) and Moritz (1976). Both structure
functions have characteristic parameters, i.e. ‘nugget effect’,
a partial sill or sill and an autocorrelation length/range) and
these parameters are essential to model the functions
parametrically.
The ‘nugget effect’ – customary denoted as c0 (see
Fig. 1) comprises the measurement error and lack of
information on the behaviour of the process at distances
shorter than the minimum distance between sampled
(23) observations c0 = s2ME + s2MS (ME is the measurement
error, MS is the microscale variance). Range (autocorrela-
tion radius/length) denoted as ‘a’ – in case of second-order
processes the semi-variogram is bounded and it stabilises
(reaches the sill) beyond some limiting distance h - range
(see Fig. 1). Some models of semi-variograms reach the
sill only asymptotically. For them a practical range is
defined as a distance at which the semi-variogram reaches
95% of the sill. For distances larger than the range (or a
practical range) spatial correlation does not exist or is
(24) negligible. Sill or partial sill (for bounded semi-vario-
grams with the nugget effect) – it is the value of a semi-
variogram beyond the autocorrelation range (variance
of a random process).
Moving window kriging
The idea behind an MWK has been introduced by Haas
(25) (1990). The goal of the method is to adapt for local
changes in spatial trends in the data or/and a covariance
function non-stationarity. This is achieved by restricting
kriging prediction to a sub-region centred at an actually
predicted location. Hence, within each sub-region (a mov-
ing window neighbourhood) an empirical covariance/
semi-variance structure is estimated only from the data
(26)
contained within the particular sub-region, then a per-
missible model is fitted to the empirical function and
basing upon this a suitable kriging system is constructed
and solved. Thus, MWK is nothing but a repeated
Survey Review 2018 VOL 50 NO 359 157
Ligas and Kulczycki Kriging and moving window kriging on a sphere in geometric geoid modelling

models to capture the spatial structure of the geoid undu-

lation field.
Spherical model
⎧
⎪ c0 + c h=0
⎪
⎪    3

⎨ 3h 1 h
C(h, c0 , c, a) = c 1 − − 0,h≤a
⎪
⎪ 2a 2 a
⎪
⎩
0 h.a
(31)
Exponential model


c +c h=0
C(h, c0 , c, a) = 0 −(h/a) (32)
ce h.0
1 Relation between semi-variogram and covariogram for the
second-order stationarity processes and characteristic Cubic model
parameters of the structure functions
C (h, c0 , c, a)
⎧
⎪ c0 + c h=0
application of classical kriging (cK) based on a changing ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎧ ⎡  2  3 ⎤ ⎫
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ h 35 h ⎪
⎪
set of data points, i.e. the interpolation is based on a semi- ⎨ ⎪
⎪ ⎨ ⎢7 a − 4 a ⎥⎪⎬
⎢ ⎥
variogram (or a covariance function) built not on the = c 1−⎢     ⎥ 0,h≤a
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎣ 7 h 5 3 h 7 ⎦⎪ ⎪
basis of all available data points but only those that are ⎪
⎪ ⎩ ⎪ + − ⎪
⎭
located in the immediate vicinity (adopted window) of ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩ 2 a 4 a
an actually interpolated point. With this approach, it is 0 h.a
possible to capture locally occurring trends in the data (33)
which in turn should lead to the overall improvement of
interpolation accuracy. Also, trend models (a location-dependent mean value of a
random process) are expressed as functions of spherical
coordinates (latitude and longitude), e.g.
Kriging on a sphere
m(w, l) = a0 + a1 w + a2 l (34)
The main practical difference between a planar kriging
and a spherical kriging lies in the fact that a covariance m(w, l) = a0 + a1 cos w cos l + a2 cos w sin l
function (or a semi-variance function) is not the function
of the Euclidean distance but rather a distance measured + a3 sin w (35)
along the great circle, i.e. spherical distance
cos c = sin w1 sin w2
(29) Study area, data and software
+ cos w1 cos w2 cos (l2 − l1 )
To compare predictive capabilities of two methods of kri-
where ϕ and λ are latitude and longitude, respectively, ψ ∈
ging, we used GNSS/levelling data available on NGS
[0, π] is the spherical distance.
website (http://www.ngs.noaa.gov). The entire dataset of
A more crucial thing is that not all covariance functions
the conterminous USA consists of about 24 000 ellipsoi-
which are permissible on a plane may be used in a spheri-
dal heights (with respect to NAD83) and levelled heights
cal case. Covariance function (a positive definite function)
(with respect to NAVD88). To make use of EGM2008,
on a sphere must have a representation of the form
we have transformed ellipsoidal data (longitude, latitude
(Schoenberg 1942, Roy 1973)
and height) from NAD83 (2011) to WGS84. To trans-

1 form between ellipsoids, we used the geodetic toolkit
C(c) = an Pn ( cos c), an ≥ 0, (HTDP tool) available on NGS website. Finally, we
n=0 used EGM2008 harmonic synthesis programme (http://
(30)

1
earth-info.nga.mil/GandG/wgs84/gravitymod/egm2008/
an , 1 egm08_wgs84.html) to acquire EGM2008-based geoid
n=0
heights for the entire dataset. Computations concerning
where Pn ( cos c) is the Legendre polynomials. kriging prediction have been carried out on the authors’
It turns out that covariance functions common in use self-developed software. From the entire dataset, we
on a plane cannot be used on a sphere [negative coeffi- have selected three regions characterised with different
cients in equation (30)]. For example, Radon transforms spatial extent and density of sampling (see Figs. 2–7).
of exponential model (Gauss–Markov second-order The first region covers the territory of North Carolina
model and Gauss–Markov third-order model in geodetic and South Carolina, denoted as test field 1 (TF1). The
literature) are not valid on a sphere, the same situation second region envelopes the states of Illinois, Indiana,
holds with Gaussian covariance function (Huang et al. Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee, and is denoted further
2011). An extensive review of covariance functions valid as TF2. The last region spreads through the states of
on a sphere the interested reader may find, e.g. in Gneiting Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkan-
(2013) and Schlather (2015). In the study contained in this sas, Texas, and Louisiana, denoted as TF3. Data con-
paper, we have used to following covariance function tained in each of the regions has been split into a

158 Survey Review 2018 VOL 50 NO 359

 Ligas and Kulczycki Kriging and moving window kriging on a sphere in geometric geoid modelling
2 Spatial distribution of ‘GPS on benchmarks’ training data
for the TF1 region
3 Spatial distribution of ‘GPS on benchmarks’ test data for
the TF1 region
4 Spatial distribution of ‘GPS on benchmarks’ training data
for the TF2 region
training set and a test set. Each training set consists of
points on which kriging models have been constructed.
Test sets, on the other hand, served only for the true vali-
dation purposes, to obtain reasonable prediction error
characteristics. The main characteristics of the mentioned
regions with respect to the spatial extent and number of
5 Spatial distribution of ‘GPS on benchmarks’ test data for
the TF2 region
6 Spatial distribution of ‘GPS on benchmarks’ training data
for the TF3 region
points in training and test sets are presented in Table 1.
The basic summary statistics of original and residual
undulation data for the three regions are presented in
Table 2.
Results
The quality of kriging prediction for both a classical
approach (denoted as cK in the following tables) and a
moving window approach (denoted as MWK in the fol-
lowing tables) has been assessed for two variants of data.
The first one concerned raw undulations (without the
use of EGM08 model) and the second one used residual
undulations (after removal of undulations derived from
EGM2008 model and adding them back after the pre-
diction procedure). Always a better variant either
Survey Review 2018 VOL 50 NO 359 159
Ligas and Kulczycki Kriging and moving window kriging on a sphere in geometric geoid modelling

Table 3 Error statistics for TF1

N N RES

Statistics cK MWK cK MWK

Max [m] 0.0973 0.0930 0.0998 0.0991

MAPE [m] 0.0129 0.0127 0.0110 0.0111
RMSPE [m] 0.0196 0.0193 0.0161 0.0162
MeAPE [m] 0.0085 0.0086 0.0078 0.0083
Corr. Coef. 0.999957 0.999958 0.999971 0.999971

- median absolute prediction error (MeAPE)

MeAPE = med|Nip − Ni | (38)

- correlation coefficient between predicted and known
geoid heights (Corr. Coef.).
In addition to the above summary statistics, we present
absolute errors assigned to specified error intervals and
the count of their occurrences (in absolute, cumulated
and percentage scale). The detailed results are presented
in Tables 3–8.
The study aimed to illustrate whether and when MWK
7 Spatial distribution of ‘GPS on benchmarks’ test data for
gives better results than cK. As could be expected, the
the TF3 region
analysis of a dataset with a large amount of points,
when the points are also densely and reasonably evenly
Table 1 Characteristics of three regions with respect the
spaced, led to the general conclusion that the workload
surface area and number of points in training and
test datasets
Table 4 Error statistics for TF2
Characteristic TF1 TF2 TF3
N N RES
Area app. app. app.
225 000 km2 575 000 km2 1 350 000 km2 Statistics cK MWK cK MWK
Training points 3157 1318 710
Test points 381 92 54 Max [m] 0.2563 0.2467 0.1089 0.1100
MAPE [m] 0.0455 0.0424 0.0210 0.0207
RMSPE [m] 0.0711 0.0661 0.0291 0.0288
MeAPE [m] 0.0257 0.0216 0.0150 0.0143
ordinary kriging or universal kriging was used. As indi- Corr. Coef. 0.999338 0.999432 0.999893 0.999895
cators of the prediction quality we used
- maximum absolute difference between predicted Np
and known geoid heights N (Max) Table 5 Error statistics for TF3
- mean absolute prediction error (MAPE)
n N N RES
|N p − Ni |
MAPE = i=1 i (36)
n Statistics cK MWK cK MWK

- root mean square prediction error (RMSPE) Max [m] 1.0359 0.7453 0.1315 0.1256
 MAPE [m] 0.1463 0.1062 0.0295 0.0281
n p 2 RMSPE [m] 0.2953 0.2033 0.0427 0.0396
i=1 (Ni − Ni )
RMSPE = (37) MeAPE [m] 0.0434 0.0314 0.0191 0.0183
n Corr. Coef. 0.994118 0.997237 0.999879 0.999895

Table 2 Summary statistics for geoid undulation data for three regions

TF1 TF2 TF3

Statistics N WGS [m] N RES [m] N WGS [m] N RES [m] N WGS [m] N RES [m]

Minimum −40.520 −0.488 −36.715 −0.829 −34.311 −0.951

Maximum −29.401 −0.119 −27.933 −0.316 −20.969 0.101
Range 11.119 0.369 8.782 0.513 13.342 1.052
Mean −34.459 −0.314 −32.891 −0.528 −28.835 −0.505
Median −33.798 −0.307 −33.640 −0.530 −28.548 −0.519
Standard deviation 2.484 0.053 2.332 0.103 2.871 0.171
Mean absolute deviation 2.117 0.042 2.038 0.083 2.290 0.141

160 Survey Review 2018 VOL 50 NO 359

 Ligas and Kulczycki Kriging and moving window kriging on a sphere in geometric geoid modelling

Table 6 Number of absolute prediction errors within particular intervals (TF1)

N N RES

cK MWK cK MWK

Interval [cm] n na % n na % n na % n na %

[0, 1] 211 211 55.4 216 216 56.7 235 235 61.7 236 236 61.9
(1, 2] 94 305 80.1 93 309 81.1 85 320 84.0 81 317 83.2
(2, 3] 40 345 90.6 35 344 90.3 39 359 94.2 39 356 93.4
(3, 4] 16 361 94.8 15 359 94.2 12 371 97.4 15 371 97.4
(4, 5] 7 368 96.6 10 369 96.9 4 375 98.4 6 377 99.0
(5, 10] 13 381 100.0 12 381 100.0 6 381 100.0 4 381 100.0

Table 7 Number of absolute prediction errors within particular intervals (TF2)

N N RES

cK MWK cK MWK

Interval [cm] n na % n na % n na % n na %

[0, 1] 25 25 27.2 25 25 27.2 33 33 35.9 35 35 38.0

(1, 2] 14 39 42.4 16 41 44.6 23 56 60.9 23 58 63.0
(2, 3] 12 51 55.4 12 53 57.6 14 70 76.1 15 73 79.3
(3, 4] 6 57 62.0 7 60 65.2 8 78 84.8 6 79 85.9
(4, 5] 6 63 68.5 7 67 72.8 5 83 90.2 4 83 90.2
(5, 10] 17 80 87.0 14 81 88.0 8 91 98.9 8 91 98.9
(10, 20] 10 90 97.8 9 90 97.8 1 92 100.0 1 92 100.0
>20 2 92 100.0 2 92 100.0 – – – – – –

(calculation time) is not rewarded with a significant
improvement in the result (see Table 3).
However, when interpolating raw geoid heights N the
results demonstrate the superiority of MWK over cK,
but differences at particular statistics are counted in tenths
of millimetres. When interpolating residual undulations
N RES a vestigial deterioration of summary statistics is
noticeable. Similarly, when analysing individual intervals
(see Table 6) it is difficult to confidently identify MWK as
giving better results. In contrast, for less numerous data-
sets where the data points are additionally arranged at
greater distances (a much larger spatial extent of a
domain), as is in the cases of TF2 and TF3, the results
leave no illusions (see Tables 4 and 7 for TF2 and Tables
5 and 8 for TF3). All summary statistics and the distri-
bution of absolute errors within particular intervals advo-
cate for MWK. The only exception is the maximum value
of differences when interpolating N RES (see Table 4)
which is 1 mm better for cK than MWK. In the presented
tables, attention should be paid to significant improve-
ment in interpolation results obtained using residual
undulations based on EGM2008. For TF2, one immedi-
ately notices approximately, 50% improvement in accu-
racy in relation to raw undulations interpolation almost
on all error characteristics. Also the classification into
particular error intervals changes significantly. For TF3,

Table 8 Number of absolute prediction errors within particular intervals (TF3)

N N RES

cK MWK cK MWK

Interval [cm] n na % n na % n na % n na %

[0, 1] 13 13 24.1 14 14 25.9 16 16 29.6 17 17 31.5

(1, 2] 4 17 31.5 5 19 35.2 13 29 53.7 11 28 51.9
(2, 3] 6 23 42.6 7 26 48.1 6 35 64.8 7 35 64.8
(3, 4] 4 27 50.0 5 31 57.4 6 41 75.9 9 44 81.5
(4, 5] 2 29 53.7 1 32 59.3 4 45 83.3 3 47 87.0
(5, 10] 6 35 64.8 10 42 77.8 6 51 94.4 5 52 96.3
(10, 20] 10 45 83.3 3 45 83.3 3 54 100.0 2 54 100.0
>20 9 54 100.0 9 54 100.0 – – – – – –
n – number of errors within given interval.
na – accumulated number of errors.
% – percentage of accumulated number of errors with respect to the total number of test points.

Survey Review 2018 VOL 50 NO 359 161

Ligas and Kulczycki Kriging and moving window kriging on a sphere in geometric geoid modelling
the gain in accuracy resulting from EGM2008 incorpor-
ation is even better and varies, roughly speaking, from
three to six times depending on the statistics.
Conclusions
In this paper, we investigated prediction capabilities of
spherical (performed on a sphere) kriging method in
two variants: cK (with a global semi-variance function/
covariance function) and an MWK (with a local semi-
variance function/covariance function). The research
has been conducted on three test fields (being on the ter-
ritory of the conterminous USA) characterised by differ-
ent spatial extent and density of sampling. The
comparison of two variants of kriging was performed
on two kinds of input data. We used raw undulation
data and residual undulation data based on EGM2008
geopotential model. Numerical tests conducted in this
study revealed that in case of high-sampling density, as
it was in the case of test field 1, there was no gain when
using MWK instead of cK. On the other hand, in case
of TF1 we obtained a visible accuracy gain for both cK
and MWK when we incorporated EGM2008-based undu-
lations into the interpolation procedure. In contrast, for
less numerous datasets and a much larger spatial extent,
as is in the cases of TF2 and TF3, the results leave no illu-
sions. MWK adapts itself to data much better than cK.
Incorporation of EGM2008, i.e. working with residual
geoid heights gives a significant improvement in compari-
son to the raw undulations interpolation. Thus, the
research proves that the stochastic combination of
MWK and global geopotential model EGM2008 with
raw undulation data has a potential to significantly
improve the final geometric geoid model even for large
areas and a sparse distribution of points.
Acknowledgements
The paper is the result of research on geospatial methods
carried out within statutory research grant No.
162 Survey Review 2018 VOL 50 NO 359
11.11.150.006 in the Department of Geomatics, AGH
University of Science and Technology, Krakow.
References
Chiles, J.P. and Delfiner, P., 1999. Geostatistics – modeling spatial uncer-
tainty. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Featherstone, W.E., Dentith, M.C., and Kirby, J.F., 1998. Strategies for
the accurate determination of orthometric heights from GPS.
Survey review, 34 (267), 278–296.
Gneiting, T., 2013. Strictly and non-strictly positive definite functions on
spheres. Bernoulli, 19 (4), 1327–1349.
Goldberger, A.S., 1962. Best linear unbiased prediction in the generalized
linear regression model. Journal of the American statistical associ-
ation, 57 (298), 369–375.
Haas, T.C., 1990. Kriging and automated variogram modeling within a
mowing window. Atmospheric environment, 24A (7), 1759–1769.
Heiskanen, W.A. and Moritz, H., 1967. Physical geodesy. San Francisco:
W.H. Freeman and Co.
Huang, C., Zhang, H. and Robeson, S.M., 2011. On the validity of com-
monly used covariance functions and variogram functions on the
sphere. Math geoscience, 43, 721–733.
Kavzoglu, T. and Saka, M.H., 2005. Modelling local GPS/levelling geoid
undulations using artificial neural networks. Journal of geodesy, 78,
520–527.
Kotsakis, C. and Katsambalos, K., 2010. Quality analysis of global geo-
potential models at 1542 GPS/leveling benchmarks over the
Hellenic mainland. Survey review, 42 (318), 327–344.
Moritz, H., 1976. Covariance functions in least – squares collocation.
Report no. 240, The Ohio State University, Department of
Geodetic Science.
Moritz, H., 1980. Advanced physical geodesy. Karlsruhe: Herbert
Wichmann Verlag.
Pavlis, N., Holmes, S.A., Kenyon, S.C. and Factor, J.K., 2012. The devel-
opment and evaluation of the Earth Gravitational Model 2008
(EGM2008). Journal of geophysical research: solid earth, 117
(B04406), 1–38.
Roy, R., 1973. Estimation of the covariance function of a homogeneous
process on the sphere. The annals of statistics, 1 (4), 780–785.
Schlather, M., 2015. Package ‘random fields’. In: Simulation and analysis
of random fields. cran.r-project.org/web/packages/RandomFields/
RandomFields.pdf.
Schoenberg, I.J., 1942. Positive definite functions on spheres. Duke math
journal, 9 (1), 96–108.
Stein, M., 1999. Interpolation of spatial data – some theory for kriging.
New York: Springer.