Skip to main content
Log in

Indicator Variogram Models: Do We Have Much Choice?

  • Special Issue
  • Published:
Mathematical Geosciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many variogram (or covariance) models that are valid—or realizable—models of Gaussian random functions are not realizable indicator variogram (or covariance) models. Unfortunately there is no known necessary and sufficient condition for a function to be the indicator variogram of a random set. Necessary conditions can be easily obtained for the behavior at the origin or at large distance. The power, Gaussian, cubic or cardinal-sine models do not fulfill these conditions and are therefore not realizable. These considerations are illustrated by a Monte Carlo simulation demonstrating nonrealizability over some very simple three-point configurations in two or three dimensions. No definitive result has been obtained about the spherical model. Among the commonly used models for Gaussian variables, only the exponential appears to be a realizable indicator variogram model in all dimensions. It can be associated with a mosaic, a Boolean or a truncated Gaussian random set. In one dimension, the exponential indicator model is closely associated with continuous-time Markov chains, which can also lead to more variogram models such as the damped oscillation model. One-dimensional random sets can also be derived from renewal processes, or mosaic models associated with such processes. This provides an interesting link between the geostatistical formalism, focused mostly on two-point statistics, and the approach of quantitative sedimentologists who compute the probability distribution function of the thickness of different geological facies. The last part of the paper presents three approaches for obtaining new realizable indicator variogram models in three dimensions. One approach consists of combining existing realizable models. Other approaches are based on the formalism of Boolean random sets and truncated Gaussian functions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abramowitz M, Stegun IA (eds) (1972) Handbook of mathematical functions with formulas, graphs, and mathematical tables. Dover, New York

  • Alabert F (1987) Stochastic imaging of spatial distributions using hard and soft data, MSc Thesis, Stanford University, USA

  • Armstrong M (1992) Positive definiteness is not enough. Math Geol 24(1):135–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong M, Galli A, Beucher H, Le Loc’h G, Renard D, Doligez D, Eschard R, Geffroy F (2011) Pluri-Gaussian simulations in geosciences, 2nd edn. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Astrakova A, Oliver DS (2015) Conditioning truncated pluri-Gaussian models to facies observations in ensemble-Kalman-based data assimilation. Math Geosci 47(3):345–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgess P, Pollitt DA (2011) The origins of shallow-water carbonate lithofacies thickness distributions: one-dimensional forward modelling of relative sea-level and production rate control. Sedimentology 59:57–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cao G, Kyriakidis PC, Goodchild MF (2011) On spatial transition probabilities as continuous measures in categorical fields. arXiv:1312.5391

  • Carle S (1996) A transition probability-based approach to geostatistical characterization of hydrostratigraphic architecture, Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, 182 p

  • Chilès JP, Delfiner P (2012) Geostatistics: modeling spatial uncertainty, 2nd edn. Wiley, Hoboken

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chu MT (1998) Inverse eigenvalue problems. SIAM REV 40(1):1–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubrule O (2003) Geostatistics for seismic data integration in earth models. Society of Exploration Geophysicists

  • Emery X (2010) On the existence of mosaic and indicator random fields with spherical, circular, and triangular variograms. Math Geosci 42:969–984

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimmet GR, Srizaker DR (2001) Probability and random processes, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiao Y, Stillinger FH, Torquato S (2007) Modeling heterogeneous materials via two-point correlation functions. I basic principles. Phys Rev E 76:031110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiao Y, Stillinger FH, Torquato S (2008) Modeling heterogeneous materials via two-point correlation functions. II algorithmic details and applications. Phys Rev E 77:031135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones TA, Ma YZ (2001) Teacher’s aide: geologic characteristics of hole-effect variograms calculated from lithology-indicator variables. Math Geol 33(5):615–629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Journel AG, Gomez-Hernandez JJ (1989) Stochastic imaging of the Wilmington clastic sequence. SPE Form Eval 8(1):33–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lachièze-Rey R (2013a) The convex class of realizable unit covariances. arXiv:1301.4402

  • Lachièze-Rey R (2013b) Realizability conditions for second-order marginals of biphased media. Published online 7 May 2014 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) doi:10.1002/rsa.20546

  • Lantuéjoul C (2002) Geostatistical simulation, models and algorithms. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Le Blévec T, Dubrule O, John CM, Hampson GJ (2016) Modelling asymmetrical facies successions using pluri-Gaussian simulations. In: Proceedings of valencia geostats2016. Springer

  • Ma YZ, Jones TA (2001) Teacher’s aide: modelling hole-effect variograms of lithology-indicator variables. Math Geol 33(5):631–648

  • Matern B (1986) Spatial variation, lecture notes in statistics 36, 2nd edn. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Matheron G (1967) Eléments pour une théorie des milieux poreux. Masson, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Matheron G (1968) Processus de renouvellement purs, course document C-10, Ecole des Mines de Paris. http://cg.ensmp.fr/bibliotheque/public/MATHERON_Cours_00284.pdf

  • Matheron G (1988) Simulation de Fonctions Aléatoires Admettant un Variogramme Concave Donné, Etudes Géostatistiques V—Séminaire CFSG sur la Géostatistique, 15-16 Juin 1987, Fontainebleau, Sciences de la Terre, Série Informatique, Nancy, 1988, 28, 195-212. http://cg.ensmp.fr/bibliotheque/public/MATHERON_Publication_00266.pdf

  • Matheron G (1989) The internal consistency of models in geostatistics. In: Armstrong M (ed) Geostatistics, vol 1. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 21–38

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Middleton GV (1973) Johannes Walther’s law of the correlation of facies. Geol Soc Am Bull 84:979–988

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris JR (1997) Markov chains, Cambridge series in statistical and probabilistic mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyrcz MJ, Deutsch CV (2003) The whole story on the hole-effect, vol 18. Geostatistical Association of Australasia, Newsletter, pp 3–5

  • Pyrcz MJ, Deutsch CV (2014) Geostatistical reservoir modeling, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritzi RW (2000) Behavior of indicator variograms and transition probabilities in relation to the variance in lengths of hydrofacies. Water Resour Res 36(11):3375–3381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Switzer P (1965) A random set model in the plane with a Markovian property. Ann Math Stat 36:1859–1863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sylvester Z (2007) Turbidite bed thickness distributions: methods and pitfalls of analysis and modelling. Sedimentology 54:847–870

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torquato S (2002) Random heterogeneous materials. Microstructure and macroscopic properties. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Torquato S (2006) Necessary conditions on realizable two-point correlation functions of random media. Ind Eng Chem Res 45:6923–6928

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velzeboer CJ (1981) The theoretical seismic reflection response of sedimentary sequences. Geophysics 46(6):843–853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yaglom AM (1987) Correlation theory of stationary and related random functions I, basic results. Springer Series in Statistics, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeong CLY, Torquato S (1998) Reconstructing random media. Phys Rev E 57:495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zunino A, Mosegaard K, Lange K, Melnikova Y, Hansen TM (2015) Monte-Carlo reservoir analysis combining seismic reflection data and informed priors. Geophysics 2015:R31–R41

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author wrote this paper as he was seconded by Total as a Visiting Professor at Imperial College London. He would like to thank both Total and Imperial College London for giving him the opportunity to work on this topic.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olivier Dubrule.

Appendix

Appendix

The starting point for this “Appendix” is the damped oscillation covariance of Eq. (19) (the discussion is limited to the case of three facies, but the generalization is simple). The goal is to find the continuous-time Markov chain, as defined by its Q-matrix, that has a given damped oscillation covariance function as its indicator covariance function. This is a particular case of the “inverse eigenvalue problem” (Chu 1998) because the coefficients 0, \(\lambda _{0}\), and \(\lambda _{1}\) of Eq. (17) must be the eigenvalues of the matrix (\(\lambda I-Q\)), where I is the identity matrix and Q is the Q-matrix.

In this example, and in order to make the calculations tractable, the definition of the Q-matrix has been restricted to the three unknown parameters s, u, v of Eq. (21), which must be positive as the diagonal term corresponds to the derivative of each of the three facies auto-transiograms at the origin.

Starting from values of w such as \(w = b/k\) with \(2\le k\) in Eq.  (19), a triplet of solutions s, u, and v is found as long as \(\phi \) is well below the threshold given by the positive-definiteness condition of Eq. (20). The coefficients s, u, and v are obtained from a system of three second-degree equations.

There is one difficulty in the fact that, since s, u, and v fully determine the Markov chain, they also determine the p proportion of indicator 1. So, as the inputs \(\rho \), b, w, and \(\phi \) vary, p itself also varies. For instance, the auto-transiogram t(h)

$$\begin{aligned} t(h) = 0.2+0.888\hbox {e}^{-0.003h}\cos \left( 0.0015h+\frac{\pi }{7}\right) , \end{aligned}$$

corresponds to the value \(p = 0.2\), and can be associated to the following Q-matrix:

$$\begin{aligned} Q = T^{\prime }(0) = \left( {{\begin{array}{c@{\quad }c@{\quad }c} {-0.002978}&{}\quad {0.002978}&{}\quad 0 \\ 0&{}\quad {0.001693}&{}\quad {-0.001693} \\ {0.001329}&{}\quad 0&{}\quad {-0.001329} \\ \end{array} }} \right) . \end{aligned}$$

A Q-matrix can also be found for all values of the phase \(\phi \) below \(\pi /7\).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dubrule, O. Indicator Variogram Models: Do We Have Much Choice?. Math Geosci 49, 441–465 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11004-017-9678-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11004-017-9678-x

Keywords

Navigation