Skip to main content
Log in

Comparative performance of indicator algorithms for modeling conditional probability distribution functions

  • Articles
  • Published:
Mathematical Geology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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 

  • Chu, J., 1993, XGAM User's Guide: Stanford Center for Reservoir Forecasting: Stanford University, Unpublished Annual Report, no. 6.

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Journel, A. G., 1983, Non-Parametric Estimation of Spatial Distribution: Math. Geol., v. 15, p. 445–468.

    Google Scholar 

  • Journel, A. G., 1986, Geostatistics: Models and Tools for the Earth Sciences: Math. Geol., v. 18, p. 119–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Journel, A. G., and Huijbregts, C. J., 1978,Mining Geostatistics: Academic Press, London, 600 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Journel, A. G. and Posa, D., 1990, Characteristic Behavior and Order Relations for Indicator Variograms: Math. Geol., v. 22, p. 1011–1025.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Wackernagel, H., 1994, Cokriging vs. Kriging in Regionalized Multivariate Data Analysis: Geoderma, v. 62, 83–92.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Goovaerts, P. Comparative performance of indicator algorithms for modeling conditional probability distribution functions. Math Geol 26, 389–411 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02089230

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02089230

Key words

Navigation