## Abstract

Assessing spatial uncertainty over an arbitrary volume is usually done by generating multiple simulations of the random function and averaging the property over each realization to build its uncertainty distribution. However, this is a cumbersome process for practitioners, as they need to compute and process a large number of realizations. Multi-Gaussian kriging provides a simpler alternative, by directly computing the conditional probability density functions of the random variables. In this work, we revisit the multi-Gaussian framework and present the implementation details to determine the conditional distribution at any support, by numerical integration of the conditional probabilities, using an importance sampling approach. We demonstrate the use of this approach and assess its accuracy in the lognormal and exponential cases with synthetic data. We also apply it to a real three-dimensional mining case, where the uncertainty over scheduled production volumes is determined. The ability to assess this uncertainty may prove valuable, as it enables schedule changes to be made in a mining setting in order to ensure the smooth running of downstream processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

## Change history

### 25 February 2021

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11004-021-09927-z

## References

Borgman L, Taheri M, Hagan R (1984) Three-dimensional, frequency-domain simulations of geological variables. In: Geostatistics for Natural Resources Characterization, Springer, pp 517–541

Bourgault G (2014) Revisiting multi-gaussian kriging with the nataf transformation or the bayes’ rule for the estimation of spatial distributions. Math Geosci 46(7):841–868

Chilès JP, Delfiner P (2012) Geostatistics: modeling spatial uncertainty. John Wiley & Sons, New-York

David M (1988) Handbook of applied advanced geostatistical ore reserve estimation

Deutsch CV, Journel AG et al (1992) Geostatistical software library and user’s guide. Oxford University Press, New York, NY

Emery X (2005) Simple and ordinary multigaussian kriging for estimating recoverable reserves. Math Geol 37(3):295–319

Emery X (2006) Two ordinary kriging approaches to predicting block grade distributions. Math Geol 38(7):801–819

Emery X (2007a) Conditioning simulations of gaussian random fields by ordinary kriging. Math Geol 39(6):607–623

Emery X (2007b) On some consistency conditions for geostatistical change-of-support models. Math Geol 39(2):205–223

Emery X (2008) Uncertainty modeling and spatial prediction by multi-gaussian kriging: accounting for an unknown mean value. Comput Geosci 34(11):1431–1442

Goovaerts P (1997) Geostatistics for natural resources evaluation. Oxford University Press, New York

Huijbregts C (1976) Selection and grade-tonnage relationships. In: Guarascio M, David M, Huijbregts C (eds) Advanced geostatistics in the mining industry. Springer, Netherlands, pp 113–135

Jackson J, Gaunt J, Astorga M (2018) Predicting mill ore feed variability using integrated geotechnical/geometallurgical models. In: Dimitrakopoulos R (ed) Advances in applied strategic mine planning. Springer, Berlin, pp 465–486

Journel AG (1974) Geostatistics for conditional simulation of ore bodies. Econ Geol 69(5):673–687

Journel AG (2018) Roadblocks to the evaluation of ore reserves - the simulation overpass and putting more geology into numerical models of deposits. In: Dimitrakopoulos R (ed) Advances in applied strategic mine planning. Springer, Berlin, pp 47–56

Journel AG, Huijbregts CJ (1978) Mining geostatistics. Academic Press, London, p 600

Khosrowshahi S, Shaw W, Yeates G (2018) Quantification of risk using simulation of the chain of mining–case study at Escondida Copper, Chile. In: Dimitrakopoulos R (ed) Advances in applied strategic mine planning, Springer, Cham pp 57–74

Matheron G (1973) Le krigeage disjonctif. note géostatistique, internal report N-360, Centre de Géostatistique, Ecole des Mines de Paris, Fontainebleau p 13

Matheron G (1974a) Effet proportionnel et lognormalité, ou: le retour du serpent de mer. note géostatistique, internal report N-374, Centre de Géostatistique, Ecole des Mines de Paris, Fontainebleau

Matheron G (1974b) Les fonctions de transfert des petits panneaux, internal report N-395. Centre de Géostatistique, Ecole des Mines de Paris, Fontainebleau

Matheron G (1976) Forecasting block grade distributions: The transfer functions. In: Guarascio M, David M, Huijbregts C (eds) Advanced geostatistics in the mining industry. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 237–251

Ortiz J, Kracht W, Townley B, Lois P, Cardenas E, Miranda R, Alvarez M (2015) Workflows in geometallurgical prediction: challenges and outlook. In: Proceedings of the 17th annual conference of the International Association for Mathematical Geosciences IAMG

Owen A, Zhou Y (2000) Safe and effective importance sampling. J Am Stat Assoc 95(449):135–143

Rivoirard J (1994) Introduction to disjunctive kriging and non-linear geostatistics. Clarendon Press, Oxford

Rossi ME, Deutsch CV (2014) Mineral resource estimation. Springer, Berlin

Verly G (1983) The multigaussian approach and its applications to the estimation of local reserves. J Int Assoc Math Geol 15(2):259–286

Verly G (1984) The block distribution given a point multivariate normal distribution. In: Verly G, David M, Journel AG, Maréchal A (eds) Geostatistics for natural resources characterization: Reidel, Dordrecht, Vol. 1, The Netherlands, pp 495–515

Verly G (1986) Multigaussian kriging–a complete case study. In: Proceedings of the 19th International APCOM Symposium: Society of Mining Engineers, Littleton, CO, pp 283–298

Wackernagel H (2013) Multivariate geostatistics: an introduction with applications. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin

## Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the funding provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada (NSERC), funding reference numbers RGPIN-2017-04200 and RGPAS-2017-507956. The authors are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper.

## Author information

### Authors and Affiliations

### Corresponding author

## Additional information

The original online version of this article was revised: plus the same explanatory text of the problem as in the erratum/correction article.

## Appendices

### Appendix A: Inferring the Point-Support Conditional Distribution in the Lognormal Case

Let \(Z\sim Logn(\mu ,\sigma ^2)\). Then, its cumulative distribution function is defined by

It follows that the anamorphosis function is

and

by noting that \(\phi ^{'}[\phi ^{-1}(z)]=\sigma \phi [\phi ^{-1}(z)]=\sigma z\). Then, the moments can be computed using Eq. (6)

Furthermore, the conditioned local distribution, given by Eq. (4), is

This result corresponds to a lognormal distribution with parameters \( \mu +\sigma \cdot y_{SK} \) and \(\sigma ^2 \cdot \sigma _{SK}^2\) for the mean and variance, respectively. Therefore, the local distribution at a certain point \(\mathbf{u} \) conditioned by the data, which presents a lognormal prior distribution, preserves the lognormality.

This derivation allows one to directly see that the variance is proportional to the square of the mean, which is known as the proportional effect (Matheron 1974a).

Following the same procedure, by extending Eq. (13) to the *N*-dimensional case, we can compute the local conditional distribution of the vector of random variables \([Z(\mathbf{u} _1),\ldots ,Z(\mathbf{u} _N)]^T\), each one following a \(Logn(\mu ,\sigma ^2)\) prior distribution.

Here, \( [Y(\mathbf{u} _1),\ldots ,Y(\mathbf{u} _N)]^T = (\mathrm{ln}[Z(\mathbf{u} _1)],\ldots ,\mathrm{ln}[Z(\mathbf{u} _N)])^T\) has an *N*-dimensional normal distribution with mean vector \({{\varvec{\mu }}}= [\mu +\sigma \cdot y_{SK}(\mathbf{u} _1),\ldots ,\mu +\sigma \cdot y_{SK}(\mathbf{u} _N)]^T\) and covariance matrix \({{\varvec{\Sigma }}}=({\varvec{\Sigma }})_{ij}\), \(i,j \in \{1,\ldots ,N\}\), such that \( ({{\varvec{\Sigma }}})_{ij} = ({\varvec{\Sigma }})_{ji}= \sigma ^2 \cdot \sigma _{SK}(\mathbf{u} _i,\mathbf{u} _j)\) and \( ({{\varvec{\Sigma }}})_{ii} = \sigma ^2 \cdot \sigma _{SK}^2(\mathbf{u} _i) \), \(i \in \{1,\ldots ,N\}\), given the data.

In Fig. 19, some possible posterior distributions and their bivariate behavior are presented.

### Appendix B: Inferring the Point-Support Conditional Distribution in the Exponential Case

Let \(Z\sim Exp(\lambda )\). Then its probability density function is given by \(f_{Z}(z)=\lambda e^{-\lambda z}\), \(z \ge 0\), and the cdf is

It follows that the anamorphosis function is given by

From here we obtain

We will not attempt to find the back-transformed conditional probability distribution, as we did with the lognormal case. However, we provide numerical results of the posterior distributions (Fig. 20). We note that the posterior distributions do not preserve the exponential characteristic. Instead, results are similar to a lognormal distribution.

## Rights and permissions

## About this article

### Cite this article

Riquelme, Á.I., Ortiz, J.M. Uncertainty Assessment over any Volume without Simulation: Revisiting Multi-Gaussian Kriging.
*Math Geosci* **53**, 1375–1405 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11004-020-09907-9

Received:

Accepted:

Published:

Issue Date:

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11004-020-09907-9

### Keywords

- Geostatistics
- Multi-Gaussian model
- Simulations
- Importance sampling