Advertisement

Mathematical Geology

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 389–411 | Cite as

Comparative performance of indicator algorithms for modeling conditional probability distribution functions

  • P. Goovaerts
Articles

Abstract

This paper compares the performance of four algorithms (full indicator cokriging. adjacent cutoffs indicator cokriging, multiple indicator kriging, median indicator kriging) for modeling conditional cumulative distribution functions (ccdf).The latter three algorithms are approximations to the theoretically better full indicator cokriging in the sense that they disregard cross-covariances between some indicator variables or they consider that all covariances are proportional to the same function. Comparative performance is assessed using a reference soil data set that includes 2649 locations at which both topsoil copper and cobalt were measured. For all practical purposes, indicator cokriging does not perform better than the other simpler algorithms which involve less variogram modeling effort and smaller computational cost. Furthermore, the number of order relation deviations is found to be higher for cokriging algorithms, especially when constraints on the kriging weights are applied.

Key words

indicator kriging conditional probability order relation deviation E-type estimate soil geochemistry 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Carr, J. R., and Deng, E. D., 1987, Comparison of Two Techniques for Applying Disjunctive Kriging: The Gaussian Anamorphosis Model Versus the Direct Statistical Inference of the Bivariate Distributions: Math. Geol., v. 19, p. 57–68.Google Scholar
  2. Chu, J., 1993, XGAM User's Guide: Stanford Center for Reservoir Forecasting: Stanford University, Unpublished Annual Report, no. 6.Google Scholar
  3. Deutsch, C. V. and Joumel, A. G., 1992, GSLIB:Geostatistical Software Library and User's Guide: Oxford University Press, New York, 340 p.Google Scholar
  4. Goovaerts, P., 1994, Comparison of coIK, IK, and mIK Performances for Modeling Conditional Probabilities of Categorical Variables,in R. Dimitrakopoulos, ed.,Geostatistics for The Next Century, p. 18–29.Google Scholar
  5. Goulard, M., and Voltz, M., 1992, Linear Coregionalization Model; Tools for Estimation and Choice of Cross-Variogram Matrix: Math. Geol., v. 24, p. 269–286.Google Scholar
  6. Journel, A. G., 1983, Non-Parametric Estimation of Spatial Distribution: Math. Geol., v. 15, p. 445–468.Google Scholar
  7. Journel, A. G., 1986, Geostatistics: Models and Tools for the Earth Sciences: Math. Geol., v. 18, p. 119–140.Google Scholar
  8. Journel, A. G., and Huijbregts, C. J., 1978,Mining Geostatistics: Academic Press, London, 600 p.Google Scholar
  9. Journel, A. G. and Posa, D., 1990, Characteristic Behavior and Order Relations for Indicator Variograms: Math. Geol., v. 22, p. 1011–1025.Google Scholar
  10. McBratney, A. B., Webster, R., McLaren, R. G., and Spiers, R. B., 1982, Regional Variation of Extractable Copper and Cobalt in the Topsoil of South-East Scotland: Agronomie, v. 2, p. 969–982.Google Scholar
  11. Rivoirard, J., 1993, Relations Between the Indicators Related to a Regionalized Variable,in A. Soares, ed.,Geostatistics Troia '92 (Vol. 1): Quantitative Geology and Geostatistics: Kluwer Academic Publishers, p. 273–284.Google Scholar
  12. Wackernagel, H., 1994, Cokriging vs. Kriging in Regionalized Multivariate Data Analysis: Geoderma, v. 62, 83–92.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Mathematical Geology 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Goovaerts
    • 1
  1. 1.Geological and Environmental Sciences DepartmentStanford UniversityStanford

Personalised recommendations