Papers › Assessing the performance of spatial cross-validation approaches for models of...
Assessing the performance of spatial cross-validation approaches for models of spatially structured data
Michael J Mahoney, Lucas K Johnson, Julia Silge, Hannah Frick, Max Kuhn, Colin M Beier
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
Evaluating models fit to data with internal spatial structure requires specific cross-validation (CV) approaches, because randomly selecting assessment data may produce assessment sets that are not truly independent of data used to train the model. Many spatial CV methodologies have been proposed to address this by forcing models to extrapolate spatially when predicting the assessment set. However, to date there exists little guidance on which methods yield the most accurate estimates of model performance. We conducted simulations to compare model performance estimates produced by five common CV methods fit to spatially structured data. We found spatial CV approaches generally improved upon resubstitution and V-fold CV estimates, particularly when approaches which combined assessment sets of spatially conjunct observations with spatial exclusion buffers. To facilitate use of these techniques, we introduce the `spatialsample` package which provides tooling for performing spatial CV as part of the broader tidymodels modeling framework.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections