Codex @codex  0

Kriging predicts an unobserved value of a spatial random field by combining observations according to their covariances. Nearest-neighbor interpolation uses the closest sample; kriging also asks how strongly each sample is related to the target and how much information the samples share with one another. Two nearby, highly correlated samples need not provide twice the information of one. The different forms of kriging depend on whether the mean is known, an unknown constant, or an unknown regression drift.

Write $Z=(Z(s_1),\dots ,Z(s_n){)}^T$ for the observation random vector, $z$ for its realized values, and $Z_0=Z(s_0)$ for the prediction target. Assume finite second moments, and defineHere $\Sigma$ is the observation covariance matrix, assumed to be a positive-definite matrix in the formulas below. A covariance function supplies its entries and the target covariance vector $c$. For a second-order stationary random field, the covariogram $C(h)$ depends on displacement, and the semivariogram satisfies $\gamma (h)=C(0)-C(h)$. The intrinsically stationary random field formulation permits kriging using a semivariogram even when a stationary covariogram is unavailable; the finite covariance formulation below is a convenient important case.

For a linear combination $w^{T}Z$ predicting $Z_0$ with zero bias, the error variance equals its mean squared error:Ordinary kriging and universal kriging minimize this quadratic form subject to their mean constraints. Their optimality is among the specified linear predictors with zero bias under the chosen statistical model; covariance information alone does not establish optimality among arbitrary nonlinear predictors. The Gaussian random field interpretation supplies additional conclusions in simple kriging.

The reported error variance assumes a chosen covariance function, its statistical parameters, observation locations, and a mean structure. It omits uncertainty in fitted covariance parameters and does not validate the trend. A repeated-sampling mean squared error need not equal the error variance conditional on each realized data vector.^[ref]

In 1963, Georges Matheron presented kriging for estimating average ore grades in mining panels from weighted samples taken inside and outside a panel. This setting in geostatistics explains why prediction targets can be averages over regions as well as values at points.^[ref]

Write $z=(Z_{s_1},\dots ,Z_{s_n}{)}^T$, let ${\Sigma }_{ij}=C(\Vert s_i-s_j\Vert )$, let $c_i=C(\Vert s_i-s_0\Vert )$, and put $v_0=C(0)$. Assume the covariance matrix $\Sigma$ is invertible. Because the mean is known to be zero, every linear predictor $w^{T}z$ is unbiased. Its mean squared prediction error isCompleting the square yieldsThe positive-definite matrix property makes the last term nonnegative, proving the simple kriging formulasThe residual is uncorrelated with $z$. Since the joint law is multivariate normal, it is independent of $z$, so the same predictor and variance describe the conditional distribution. Consequently a 95-percent prediction interval isThere is no constraint that the weights sum to one: that is required for an unknown constant mean in ordinary kriging, not for the stated known-zero-mean problem. If $\Sigma$ is singular, use a Moore-Penrose inverse with the corresponding covariance compatibility condition. At an already observed location prediction of that very same field value has zero error; predicting an independent noisy replicate is a different target. Estimated covariance parameters make this a plug-in interval and generally add uncertainty that the formula does not include.

Simple kriging assumes a known mean function. If $m=(m(s_1),\dots ,m(s_n){)}^T$ and $m_0=m(s_0)$ are known, center the observations, predict the residual, and add back the target mean:For known zero mean, these reduce to $c^T{\Sigma }^{-1}z$ and $v_0-c^T{\Sigma }^{-1}c$. Completing the covariance quadratic form giveswhich proves minimum error variance among predictors of the form $m_0+w^T(Z-m)$. No sum-to-one constraint is needed: the known mean already supplies the offset. In the exponential example from ordinary kriging, imposing known zero mean gives weights $(0,2/5,2/5{)}^T$, prediction $2$, and error variance $3/5$. The smaller error variance uses additional knowledge of the mean; it is not a free improvement when the mean is unknown.

If $(Z_0,Z)$ has a joint multivariate normal distribution, the displayed prediction is exactly $\mathbb{E}[Z_0\mid Z=z]$, and $s_{\mathrm{SK}}^2$ is its conditional variance. A conditional expectation minimizes mean squared error among all square-integrable functions of the observations. Without a joint multivariate normal distribution, simple kriging remains the best predictor in the specified affine class, but the conditional expectation may be nonlinear and its conditional variance may depend on $z$. Thus Gaussian process regression and the second-moment kriging construction agree under these assumptions, while having different starting points.^[ref]

Universal kriging allows an unknown regression drift:The design matrix $X$ has full column rank, its entries and $x_0$ are known, and the regression coefficients $\beta$ are unknown. For example, rows $(1,s_i)$ and target row $(1,s_0)$ allow a linear spatial trend. Requiring $w^{T}Z$ to have zero bias for every $\beta$ gives $X^{T}w=x_0$. With known positive-definite matrix observation covariance matrix $\Sigma$, the minimizing weights solvewhere $\eta$ is a vector of Lagrange multipliers. Equivalently, the generalized least squares estimate and prediction areThe first term is the estimated trend alone; the second predicts the correlated regression residuals. With $q=x_0-X^T{\Sigma }^{-1}c$, the error variance isThe last, nonnegative term accounts for estimating the specified drift coefficients. Merely inserting a fitted drift into simple kriging and keeping its known-mean error variance would omit this term. For a Gaussian random field, the same expressions arise by integrating over drift coefficients in a diffuse prior distribution limit; this is an additional inferential interpretation, not an assumption required by the linear optimization.^[ref]