Mathematical Geosciences

, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 141–163 | Cite as

The Value of Information in Spatial Decision Making

Article

Abstract

Experiments performed over spatially correlated domains, if poorly chosen, may not be worth their cost of acquisition. In this paper, we integrate the decision-analytic notion of value of information with spatial statistical models. We formulate methods to evaluate monetary values associated with experiments performed in the spatial decision making context, including the prior value, the value of perfect information, and the value of the experiment, providing imperfect information. The prior for the spatial distinction of interest is assumed to be a categorical Markov random field whereas the likelihood distribution can take any form depending on the experiment under consideration. We demonstrate how to efficiently compute the value of an experiment for Markov random fields of moderate size, with the aid of two examples. The first is a motivating example with presence-absence data, while the second application is inspired by seismic exploration in the petroleum industry. We discuss insights from the two examples, relating the value of an experiment with its accuracy, the cost and revenue from downstream decisions, and the design of the experiment.

Value of information Value of experiment Markov random field Spatial decision making Decision analysis Recursive computation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ash RB (1965) Information theory. Dover, New York Google Scholar
  2. Avseth P, Mukerji T, Mavko G (2005) Quantitative seismic interpretation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  3. Besag J (1974) Spatial interaction and the statistical analysis of lattice systems. J R Stat Soc Ser B 36:192–225 Google Scholar
  4. Bickel JE, Gibson RL, McVay DA, Pickering S, Waggoner J (2006) Quantifying 3D land seismic reliability and value. Soc Pet Eng J SPE 102340 Google Scholar
  5. Begg S, Bratvold RB, Campbell JM (2002) The value of flexibility in managing uncertainty in oil and gas investments. SPE 77586 Google Scholar
  6. Carroll C, Zielinski WJ, Noss RF (1999) Using presence–absence data to build and test spatial habitat models for the fisher in the Klamath region, USA. Conserv Biol 13:1344–1359 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clyde MA (2001) Experimental design: A Bayesian perspective. In: Smelser et al (eds) International encyclopedia in social and behavioral sciences. Elsevier, Amsterdam Google Scholar
  8. Cunningham P, Begg S (2008) Using the value of information to determine optimal well order in a sequential drilling program. AAPG Bull 92:1393–1402 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Diggle P, Lophaven S (2006) Bayesian geostatistical design. Scand J Stat 33:53–64 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eidsvik J, Avseth P, Omre H, Mukerji T, Mavko G (2004) Stochastic reservoir characterization using prestack seismic data. Geophysics 69:978–993 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eidsvik J, Bhattacharjya D, Mukerji T (2008) Value of information of seismic amplitude and CSEM resistivity. Geophysics 73:R59–R69 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Friel N, Rue H (2007) Recursive computing and simulation-free inference for general factorizable models. Biometrika 94:661–672 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fuentes M, Chaudhuri A, Holland DM (2007) Bayesian entropy for spatial sampling design of environmental data. Environ Ecol Stat 14:323–340 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Houck RT, Pavlov DA (2006) Evaluating reconnaissance CSEM survey designs using detection theory. Lead Edge 25:994–1004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Howard R (1966) Information value theory. IEEE Trans Syst Sci Cybern 2(1):22–26 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Howard R (1970) Decision analysis: Perspectives on inference, decision and experimentation. Proc IEEE 58:632–643, IEEE Special Issue, Detection Theory and Applications CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Le ND, Zidek JV (2006) Statistical analysis of environmental space-time processes. Springer, Berlin Google Scholar
  18. Lindley DV (1971) Making decisions. Wiley, New York Google Scholar
  19. Liu JS (2001) Monte Carlo strategies in scientific computing. Springer, New York Google Scholar
  20. Marchant BP, Lark RM (2007) Optimized sample schemes for geostatistical surveys. Math Geol 39:113–134 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Matheson JE (1990) Using influence diagrams to value information and control. In: Oliver RM, Smith JQ (eds) Influence diagrams, belief nets and decision analysis. Wiley, New York, pp 25–48 Google Scholar
  22. Mukerji T, Avseth P, Mavko G, Takahashi I, Gonzalez E (2001) Statistical rock physics; combining rock physics, information theory, and geostatistics to reduce uncertainty in seismic reservoir characterization. Lead Edge 20:313–319 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Müller WG (2001) Collecting spatial data. Springer, Heidelberg Google Scholar
  24. Polasky A, Solow AR (2001) The value of information in reserve site selection. Biodivers Conserv 10:1051–1058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Raiffa H (1968) Decision analysis. Addison-Wesley, Reading Google Scholar
  26. Reeves R, Pettitt AN (2004) Efficient recursions for general factorisable models. Biometrika 91:751–757 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Welton NJ, Ades AE, Caldwell DM, Peters TJ (2008) Research prioritization based on expected value of partial perfect information: a case-study on interventions to increase uptake of breast cancer screening. J R Stat Soc A 171:807–841 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yokota F, Thompson KM (2004) Value of information analysis in environmental health risk management decisions: past, present and future. Risk Anal 24:635–650 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zidek JV, Sun W, Le ND (2000) Designing and integrating composite networks for monitoring multivariate Gaussian pollution fields. Appl Stat 49:63–79 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Mathematical Geosciences 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Debarun Bhattacharjya
    • 1
  • Jo Eidsvik
    • 2
  • Tapan Mukerji
    • 3
  1. 1.Business Analytics and Math SciencesIBM T.J. Watson Research CenterYorktown HeightsUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mathematical SciencesNTNUTrondheimNorway
  3. 3.Department of Energy Resources EngineeringStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations