Treat today at Edinburgh Uni stats seminar: Emiko Dupont (Bath) talking about her new work on spatial confounding (https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.16861) #statschat #statistics #mgcvchat
Demystifying Spatial Confounding

Spatial confounding is a fundamental issue in spatial regression models which arises because spatial random effects, included to approximate unmeasured spatial variation, are typically not independent of covariates in the model. This can lead to significant bias in covariate effect estimates. The problem is complex and has been the topic of extensive research with sometimes puzzling and seemingly contradictory results. Here, we develop a broad theoretical framework that brings mathematical clarity to the mechanisms of spatial confounding, providing explicit analytical expressions for the resulting bias. We see that the problem is directly linked to spatial smoothing and identify exactly how the size and occurrence of bias relate to the features of the spatial model as well as the underlying confounding scenario. Using our results, we can explain subtle and counter-intuitive behaviours. Finally, we propose a general approach for dealing with spatial confounding bias in practice, applicable for any spatial model specification. When a covariate has non-spatial information, we show that a general form of the so-called spatial+ method can be used to eliminate bias. When no such information is present, the situation is more challenging but, under the assumption of unconfounded high frequencies, we develop a procedure in which multiple capped versions of spatial+ are applied to assess the bias in this case. We illustrate our approach with an application to air temperature in Germany.

arXiv.org
(this is a really good talk!)
this is very neat: using the fact that we can cast almost all spatial modelling problems as mixed models, Emiko and co have come up with an expression for the bias when spatial confounding happens. The formulation *also* says how the formulation of the precision contributes to the bias! VERY cool!
@millerdl Nice! I was going to ask if this was related to Hodges, and Reich. 2010, but I see that it is ... (“Adding Spatially-Correlated Errors Can Mess Up the Fixed Effect You Love.” The American Statistician 64 (4): 325–34. https://doi.org/10.1198/tast.2010.10052 )
@bbolker @millerdl Am going to start a "American Statistician Paper Title or Hallmark Movie Strapline" quiz.
@bbolker indeed! I wasn’t up to date with the follow-ups to that paper but it turns out a lot has happened since 2010!
@millerdl @bbolker yes, much of the discussion about the problem had been misguided into thinking that making the fixed effect estimates stay the same when the model is improved would a good thing. I've always puzzled over why people seemed to dislike improving one's estimates by making a model less mis-specified; I mean, why did people trust their oversimplified models parameter estimates to begin with? That a parameter has the same name/notation in two models doesn't mean that it's the "same".