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.
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
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
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
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
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
Chu MT (1998) Inverse eigenvalue problems. SIAM REV 40(1):1–39
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
Grimmet GR, Srizaker DR (2001) Probability and random processes, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Jiao Y, Stillinger FH, Torquato S (2007) Modeling heterogeneous materials via two-point correlation functions. I basic principles. Phys Rev E 76:031110
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
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
Journel AG, Gomez-Hernandez JJ (1989) Stochastic imaging of the Wilmington clastic sequence. SPE Form Eval 8(1):33–40
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
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
Matheron G (1967) Eléments pour une théorie des milieux poreux. Masson, Paris
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
Middleton GV (1973) Johannes Walther’s law of the correlation of facies. Geol Soc Am Bull 84:979–988
Norris JR (1997) Markov chains, Cambridge series in statistical and probabilistic mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
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
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
Switzer P (1965) A random set model in the plane with a Markovian property. Ann Math Stat 36:1859–1863
Sylvester Z (2007) Turbidite bed thickness distributions: methods and pitfalls of analysis and modelling. Sedimentology 54:847–870
Torquato S (2002) Random heterogeneous materials. Microstructure and macroscopic properties. Springer, New York
Torquato S (2006) Necessary conditions on realizable two-point correlation functions of random media. Ind Eng Chem Res 45:6923–6928
Velzeboer CJ (1981) The theoretical seismic reflection response of sedimentary sequences. Geophysics 46(6):843–853
Yaglom AM (1987) Correlation theory of stationary and related random functions I, basic results. Springer Series in Statistics, New York
Yeong CLY, Torquato S (1998) Reconstructing random media. Phys Rev E 57:495
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
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
Corresponding author
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)
corresponds to the value \(p = 0.2\), and can be associated to the following Q-matrix:
A Q-matrix can also be found for all values of the phase \(\phi \) below \(\pi /7\).
Rights and permissions
About this article
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11004-017-9678-x