Articles | Volume 15, issue 12
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-4689-2022
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-4689-2022
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Methods for assessment of models
| 
20 Jun 2022
Methods for assessment of models |
| 20 Jun 2022
| 20 Jun 2022
loopUI-0.1: indicators to support needs and practices in 3D geological modelling uncertainty quantification
Guillaume Pirot
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
The Centre for Exploration Targeting, School of Earth Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
Mineral Exploration Cooperative Research Centre (MinEx CRC), School of Earth Sciences, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
Ranee Joshi
The Centre for Exploration Targeting, School of Earth Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
Mineral Exploration Cooperative Research Centre (MinEx CRC), School of Earth Sciences, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
Jérémie Giraud
The Centre for Exploration Targeting, School of Earth Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
Mineral Exploration Cooperative Research Centre (MinEx CRC), School of Earth Sciences, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
GeoRessources Lab, University of Lorraine, Nancy, France
Mark Douglas Lindsay
The Centre for Exploration Targeting, School of Earth Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
Mineral Exploration Cooperative Research Centre (MinEx CRC), School of Earth Sciences, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
ARC Industrial Transformation and Training Centre
in Data Analytics for Resources and the Environment (DARE), Sydney, Australia
CSIRO Mineral Resources, Perth, Australia
Mark Walter Jessell
The Centre for Exploration Targeting, School of Earth Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
Mineral Exploration Cooperative Research Centre (MinEx CRC), School of Earth Sciences, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
ARC Industrial Transformation and Training Centre
in Data Analytics for Resources and the Environment (DARE), Sydney, Australia
Related authors
Léonard Moracchini, Guillaume Pirot, Kerry Bardot, Mark W. Jessell, and James L. McCallum
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-154, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-154, 2024
Revised manuscript accepted for GMD
Short summary
Short summary
To facilitate the exploration of alternative hydrogeological scenarios, we propose to approximate costly physical simulations of contaminant transport by more affordable shortest distances computations. It enables to accept or reject scenarios within a predefined confidence interval. In particular, it can allow to estimate the probability of a fault acting as a preferential path or a barrier.
Alan Robert Alexander Aitken, Ian Delaney, Guillaume Pirot, and Mauro A. Werder
The Cryosphere, 18, 4111–4136, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-4111-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-4111-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Understanding how glaciers generate sediment and transport it to the ocean is important for understanding ocean ecosystems and developing knowledge of the past cryosphere from marine sediments. This paper presents a new way to simulate sediment transport in rivers below ice sheets and glaciers and quantify volumes and characteristics of sediment that can be used to reveal the hidden record of the subglacial environment for both past and present glacial conditions.
Richard Scalzo, Mark Lindsay, Mark Jessell, Guillaume Pirot, Jeremie Giraud, Edward Cripps, and Sally Cripps
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 3641–3662, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3641-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3641-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This paper addresses numerical challenges in reasoning about geological models constrained by sensor data, especially models that describe the history of an area in terms of a sequence of events. Our method ensures that small changes in simulated geological features, such as the position of a boundary between two rock layers, do not result in unrealistically large changes to resulting sensor measurements, as occur presently using several popular modeling packages.
Mark Jessell, Jiateng Guo, Yunqiang Li, Mark Lindsay, Richard Scalzo, Jérémie Giraud, Guillaume Pirot, Ed Cripps, and Vitaliy Ogarko
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 381–392, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-381-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-381-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
To robustly train and test automated methods in the geosciences, we need to have access to large numbers of examples where we know
the answer. We present a suite of synthetic 3D geological models with their gravity and magnetic responses that allow researchers to test their methods on a whole range of geologically plausible models, thus overcoming one of the fundamental limitations of automation studies.
Ranee Joshi, Kavitha Madaiah, Mark Jessell, Mark Lindsay, and Guillaume Pirot
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 6711–6740, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6711-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6711-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We have developed a software that allows the user to extract and standardize drill hole information from legacy datasets and/or different drilling campaigns. It also provides functionality to upscale the lithological information. These functionalities were possible by developing thesauri to identify and group geological terminologies together.
Mark Jessell, Vitaliy Ogarko, Yohan de Rose, Mark Lindsay, Ranee Joshi, Agnieszka Piechocka, Lachlan Grose, Miguel de la Varga, Laurent Ailleres, and Guillaume Pirot
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 5063–5092, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-5063-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-5063-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We have developed software that allows the user to extract sufficient information from unmodified digital maps and associated datasets that we are able to use to automatically build 3D geological models. By automating the process we are able to remove human bias from the procedure, which makes the workflow reproducible.
Vitaliy Ogarko and Mark Jessell
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1294, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1294, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
We developed a new method to reconstruct underground rock layers from drillhole data, using an advanced algorithm to ensure geologically realistic results. By combining data from multiple drillholes, our approach reduces uncertainty and improves accuracy. Tested on South Australian data, it successfully predicted stratigraphy and highlighted ways to enhance data quality. This innovation makes geological analysis more reliable, aiding exploration and resource management.
Lawrence A. Bird, Vitaliy Ogarko, Laurent Ailleres, Lachlan Grose, Jeremie Giraud, Felicity S. McCormack, David E. Gwyther, Jason L. Roberts, Richard S. Jones, and Andrew N. Mackintosh
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-211, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-211, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The terrain of the seafloor has important controls on the access of warm water to below floating ice shelves around Antarctica. Here, we present an open-source method to infer what the seafloor looks like around the Antarctic continent, and within these ice shelf cavities, using measurements of the Earth’s gravitational field. We present an improved seafloor map for the Vincennes Bay region in East Antarctica and assess its impact on ice melt rates.
Mark Douglas Lindsay, Vitaliy Ogarko, Jeremie Giraud, and Mosayeb Khademi
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3754, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3754, 2025
Preprint archived
Short summary
Short summary
Geophysical data is used to understand the Earth's structure. Geophysical inversion is an optimisation technique that constructs a model of the Earth using geophysical data. Inversion is complex and requires constraints to produce a plausible model. Overfitting is a disadvantageous effect that can affect techniques that rely on optimisation. A new feature in an inversion platform reduces overfitting by informing inversion of spatial uncertainty contained within the geophysical data.
Léonard Moracchini, Guillaume Pirot, Kerry Bardot, Mark W. Jessell, and James L. McCallum
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-154, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-154, 2024
Revised manuscript accepted for GMD
Short summary
Short summary
To facilitate the exploration of alternative hydrogeological scenarios, we propose to approximate costly physical simulations of contaminant transport by more affordable shortest distances computations. It enables to accept or reject scenarios within a predefined confidence interval. In particular, it can allow to estimate the probability of a fault acting as a preferential path or a barrier.
Alan Robert Alexander Aitken, Ian Delaney, Guillaume Pirot, and Mauro A. Werder
The Cryosphere, 18, 4111–4136, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-4111-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-4111-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Understanding how glaciers generate sediment and transport it to the ocean is important for understanding ocean ecosystems and developing knowledge of the past cryosphere from marine sediments. This paper presents a new way to simulate sediment transport in rivers below ice sheets and glaciers and quantify volumes and characteristics of sediment that can be used to reveal the hidden record of the subglacial environment for both past and present glacial conditions.
Vitaliy Ogarko, Kim Frankcombe, Taige Liu, Jeremie Giraud, Roland Martin, and Mark Jessell
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2325–2345, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2325-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2325-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We present a major release of the Tomofast-x open-source gravity and magnetic inversion code that is enhancing its performance and applicability for both industrial and academic studies. We focus on real-world mineral exploration scenarios, while offering flexibility for applications at regional scale or for crustal studies. The optimisation work described in this paper is fundamental to allowing more complete descriptions of the controls on magnetisation, including remanence.
Jiateng Guo, Xuechuang Xu, Luyuan Wang, Xulei Wang, Lixin Wu, Mark Jessell, Vitaliy Ogarko, Zhibin Liu, and Yufei Zheng
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 957–973, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-957-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-957-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study proposes a semi-supervised learning algorithm using pseudo-labels for 3D geological modelling. We establish a 3D geological model using borehole data from a complex real urban local survey area in Shenyang and make an uncertainty analysis of this model. The method effectively expands the sample space, which is suitable for geomodelling and uncertainty analysis from boreholes. The modelling results perform well in terms of spatial morphology and geological semantics.
Jérémie Giraud, Guillaume Caumon, Lachlan Grose, Vitaliy Ogarko, and Paul Cupillard
Solid Earth, 15, 63–89, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-15-63-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-15-63-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We present and test an algorithm that integrates geological modelling into deterministic geophysical inversion. This is motivated by the need to model the Earth using all available data and to reconcile the different types of measurements. We introduce the methodology and test our algorithm using two idealised scenarios. Results suggest that the method we propose is effectively capable of improving the models recovered by geophysical inversion and may be applied in real-world scenarios.
Jérémie Giraud, Hoël Seillé, Mark D. Lindsay, Gerhard Visser, Vitaliy Ogarko, and Mark W. Jessell
Solid Earth, 14, 43–68, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-14-43-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-14-43-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We propose and apply a workflow to combine the modelling and interpretation of magnetic anomalies and resistivity anomalies to better image the basement. We test the method on a synthetic case study and apply it to real world data from the Cloncurry area (Queensland, Australia), which is prospective for economic minerals. Results suggest a new interpretation of the composition and structure towards to east of the profile that we modelled.
Richard Scalzo, Mark Lindsay, Mark Jessell, Guillaume Pirot, Jeremie Giraud, Edward Cripps, and Sally Cripps
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 3641–3662, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3641-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3641-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This paper addresses numerical challenges in reasoning about geological models constrained by sensor data, especially models that describe the history of an area in terms of a sequence of events. Our method ensures that small changes in simulated geological features, such as the position of a boundary between two rock layers, do not result in unrealistically large changes to resulting sensor measurements, as occur presently using several popular modeling packages.
Mark Jessell, Jiateng Guo, Yunqiang Li, Mark Lindsay, Richard Scalzo, Jérémie Giraud, Guillaume Pirot, Ed Cripps, and Vitaliy Ogarko
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 381–392, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-381-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-381-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
To robustly train and test automated methods in the geosciences, we need to have access to large numbers of examples where we know
the answer. We present a suite of synthetic 3D geological models with their gravity and magnetic responses that allow researchers to test their methods on a whole range of geologically plausible models, thus overcoming one of the fundamental limitations of automation studies.
Ranee Joshi, Kavitha Madaiah, Mark Jessell, Mark Lindsay, and Guillaume Pirot
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 6711–6740, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6711-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6711-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We have developed a software that allows the user to extract and standardize drill hole information from legacy datasets and/or different drilling campaigns. It also provides functionality to upscale the lithological information. These functionalities were possible by developing thesauri to identify and group geological terminologies together.
Jérémie Giraud, Vitaliy Ogarko, Roland Martin, Mark Jessell, and Mark Lindsay
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 6681–6709, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6681-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6681-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We review different techniques to model the Earth's subsurface from geophysical data (gravity field anomaly, magnetic field anomaly) using geological models and measurements of the rocks' properties. We show examples of application using idealised examples reproducing realistic features and provide theoretical details of the open-source algorithm we use.
Mahtab Rashidifard, Jérémie Giraud, Mark Lindsay, Mark Jessell, and Vitaliy Ogarko
Solid Earth, 12, 2387–2406, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-12-2387-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-12-2387-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
One motivation for this study is to develop a workflow that enables the integration of geophysical datasets with different coverages that are quite common in exploration geophysics. We have utilized a level set approach to achieve this goal. The utilized technique parameterizes the subsurface in the same fashion as geological models. Our results indicate that the approach is capable of integrating information from seismic data in 2D to guide the 3D inversion results of the gravity data.
Lachlan Grose, Laurent Ailleres, Gautier Laurent, Guillaume Caumon, Mark Jessell, and Robin Armit
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 6197–6213, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6197-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6197-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Fault discontinuities in rock packages represent the plane where two blocks of rock have moved. They are challenging to incorporate into geological models because the geometry of the faulted rock units are defined by not only the location of the discontinuity but also the kinematics of the fault. In this paper, we outline a structural geology framework for incorporating faults into geological models by directly incorporating kinematics into the mathematical framework of the model.
Mark Jessell, Vitaliy Ogarko, Yohan de Rose, Mark Lindsay, Ranee Joshi, Agnieszka Piechocka, Lachlan Grose, Miguel de la Varga, Laurent Ailleres, and Guillaume Pirot
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 5063–5092, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-5063-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-5063-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We have developed software that allows the user to extract sufficient information from unmodified digital maps and associated datasets that we are able to use to automatically build 3D geological models. By automating the process we are able to remove human bias from the procedure, which makes the workflow reproducible.
Lachlan Grose, Laurent Ailleres, Gautier Laurent, and Mark Jessell
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3915–3937, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3915-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3915-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
LoopStructural is an open-source 3D geological modelling library with a model design allowing for multiple different algorithms to be used for comparison for the same geology. Geological structures are modelled using structural geology concepts and techniques, allowing for complex structures such as overprinted folds and faults to be modelled. In the paper, we demonstrate automatically generating a 3-D model from map2loop-processed geological survey data of the Flinders Ranges, South Australia.
Cited articles
Ahmed, N., Natarajan, T., and Rao, K. R.: Discrete cosine transform, IEEE
T. Comput., 100, 90–93, 1974. a
Ailleres, L.: The Loop 3D stochastic geological modelling platform –
development and applications, GMD Special Issue,
https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/special_issue1142.html (last access: 8 June 2022), data available at: https://loop3d.github.io/ (last access: 8 June 2022), 2020. a
Chen, M., Tompson, A. F., Mellors, R. J., and Abdalla, O.: An efficient
optimization of well placement and control for a geothermal prospect under
geological uncertainty, Appl. Energ., 137, 352–363, 2015. a
Dagan, I., Lee, L., and Pereira, F.: Similarity-based methods for word sense
disambiguation, in: Proceedings of the 35th ACL/8th EACL, arXiv preprint, 56–63, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.cmp-lg/9708010, 1997. a, b, c
de la Varga, M., Schaaf, A., and Wellmann, F.: GemPy 1.0: open-source stochastic geological modeling and inversion, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 1–32, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-1-2019, 2019. a
Deza, M. M. and Deza, E.: Encyclopedia of distances, in: Encyclopedia of
distances, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1–583,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00234-2_1, 2009. a
Donnat, C. and Holmes, S.: Tracking network dynamics: A survey using graph
distances, Ann. Appl. Stat., 12, 971–1012,
https://doi.org/10.1214/18-AOAS1176, 2018. a, b
Franke, N. and Von Hippel, E.: Satisfying heterogeneous user needs via
innovation toolkits: the case of Apache security software, Res. Policy,
32, 1199–1215, https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290601111051, 2003. a
Gao, X., Xiao, B., Tao, D., and Li, X.: A survey of graph edit distance,
Pattern Anal. Appl., 13, 113–129,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10044-008-0141-y, 2010. a
Giraud, J., Ogarko, V., Lindsay, M., Pakyuz-Charrier, E., Jessell, M., and
Martin, R.: Sensitivity of constrained joint inversions to geological and
petrophysical input data uncertainties with posterior geological analysis,
Geophys. J. Int., 218, 666–688, 2019. a
Giraud, J., Ogarko, V., Martin, R., Jessell, M., and Lindsay, M.: Structural, petrophysical, and geological constraints in potential field inversion using the Tomofast-x v1.0 open-source code, Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 6681–6709, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6681-2021, 2021. a
Grose, L., Ailleres, L., Laurent, G., and Jessell, M.: LoopStructural 1.0: time-aware geological modelling, Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3915–3937, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3915-2021, 2021. a, b
Guardiano, F. and Srivastava, R.: Multivariate geostatistics: beyond bivariate
moments, in: Geostatistics Troia 1992, edited by: Soares, A., 133–144,
Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1739-5_12, 1993. a
Ipsen, M. and Mikhailov, A. S.: Erratum: Evolutionary reconstruction of
networks, Physical Review E, 67, 039901,
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.67.039901, 2003. a
Jessell, M., Ogarko, V., de Rose, Y., Lindsay, M., Joshi, R., Piechocka, A., Grose, L., de la Varga, M., Ailleres, L., and Pirot, G.: Automated geological map deconstruction for 3D model construction using map2loop 1.0 and map2model 1.0, Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 5063–5092, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-5063-2021, 2021. a
Joshi, R., Madaiah, K., Jessell, M., Lindsay, M., and Pirot, G.: dh2loop 1.0: an open-source Python library for automated processing and classification of geological logs, Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 6711–6740, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6711-2021, 2021. a
Journel, A. G. and Huijbregts, C. J.: Mining geostatistics, Academic Press, New York, 600 p., ISBN 0123910501, 1978. a
Journel, A. G. and Deutsch, C. V.: Entropy and spatial disorder, Math.
Geol., 25, 329–355, 1993. a
Kujala, S.: Effective user involvement in product development by improving the
analysis of user needs, Behav. Inform. Technol., 27, 457–473,
2008. a
Kullback, S. and Leibler, R. A.: On information and sufficiency, Ann. Math. Stat., 22, 79–86, 1951. a
Laforgue, P., Clémençon, S., and d'Alché Buc, F.: Autoencoding
any data through kernel autoencoders, in: The 22nd International Conference
on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, PMLR, Naha, Okinawa, Japan, 1061–1069, http://proceedings.mlr.press/v89/laforgue19a/laforgue19a.pdf (last access: 9 June 2022), 2019. a
Laine, E., Luukas, J., Mäki, T., Kousa, J., Ruotsalainen, A., Suppala, I.,
Imaña, M., Heinonen, S., and Häkkinen, T.: The
Vihanti-Pyhäsalmi Area, in: 3D, 4D and Predictive Modelling of Major
Mineral Belts in Europe, edited by: Weihed, P., Springer
International Publishing, Cham, 123–144, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17428-0_6, 2015. a
Lajaunie, C., Courrioux, G., and Manuel, L.: Foliation fields and 3D
cartography in geology: principles of a method based on potential
interpolation, Math. Geol., 29, 571–584, 1997. a
Laurent, G. and Grose, L.: A Hitchhiking Foray into the Structural Uncertainty Space, 2020 Ring meeting, Nancy, France, https://www.ring-team.org/research-publications/ring-meeting-papers?view=pub&id=4971 (last access: 9 June 2022), 2020. a
Lee, G., Gommers, R., Waselewski, F., Wohlfahrt, K., and O'Leary, A.:
PyWavelets: A Python package for wavelet analysis, Journal of Open Source
Software, 4, 1237, https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01237, 2019. a
Li, L., Boucher, A., and Caers, J.: SGEMS-UQ: An uncertainty quantification
toolkit for SGEMS, Comput. Geosci., 62, 12–24, 2014. a
Linde, N., Ginsbourger, D., Irving, J., Nobile, F., and Doucet, A.: On
uncertainty quantification in hydrogeology and hydrogeophysics, Adv.
Water Resour., 110, 166–181, 2017. a
Lindsay, M. D., Occhipinti, S., Laflamme, C., Aitken, A., and Ramos, L.: Mapping undercover: integrated geoscientific interpretation and 3D modelling of a Proterozoic basin, Solid Earth, 11, 1053–1077, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-11-1053-2020, 2020. a
Lochbühler, T., Pirot, G., Straubhaar, J., and Linde, N.: Conditioning of
Multiple-Point Statistics Facies Simulations to Tomographic Images,
Math. Geosci., 46, 625–645, 2013. a
Loop: An open source 3D probabilistic geological and geophysical modelling
platform, https://loop3d.org/ (last access: 9 June 2022), 2019. a
Mo, S., Shi, X., Lu, D., Ye, M., and Wu, J.: An adaptive Kriging surrogate
method for efficient uncertainty quantification with an application to
geological carbon sequestration modeling, Comput. Geosci., 125,
69–77, 2019. a
Osenbrück, K., Gläser, H.-R., Knöller, K., Weise, S. M., Möder,
M., Wennrich, R., Schirmer, M., Reinstorf, F., Busch, W., and Strauch, G.:
Sources and transport of selected organic micropollutants in urban
groundwater underlying the city of Halle (Saale), Germany, Water Res.,
41, 3259–3270, 2007. a
Pakyuz-Charrier, E., Lindsay, M., Ogarko, V., Giraud, J., and Jessell, M.: Monte Carlo simulation for uncertainty estimation on structural data in implicit 3-D geological modeling, a guide for disturbance distribution selection and parameterization, Solid Earth, 9, 385–402, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-9-385-2018, 2018. a, b
Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel,
O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J.,
Passos, A., Cournapeau, D., Brucher, M., Perrot, M., and Duchesnay, E.:
Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python, J. Mach. Learn.
Res., 12, 2825–2830, 2011. a
Pellerin, J., Caumon, G., Julio, C., Mejia-Herrera, P., and Botella, A.:
Elements for measuring the complexity of 3D structural models: Connectivity
and geometry, Comput. Geosci., 76, 130–140, 2015. a
Pirot, G.: loopUI-0.1: uncertainty indicators for voxet ensembles,
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5118418,
https://github.com/Loop3D/uncertaintyIndicators/, 2021a. a
Pirot, G.: Loop3D/loopUI: v0.1 (v0.1-gamma), Zenodo [code] [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5656151, 2021b. a
Pirot, G., Lindsay, M., Grose, L., and Jessell, M.: A sensitivity analysis of
geological uncertainty to data and algorithmic uncertainty, AGU Fall
Meeting 2020, AGU, https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm20/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/673735 (last access: 9 June 2022), 2020. a
Raftery, A. E.: Bayesian model selection in structural equation models, Sage
Foc. Ed., 154, 163–163, 1993. a
Rényi, A.: On measures of information and entropy, in: Proceedings of the
4th Berkeley symposium on mathematics, Statistics And Probability, https://projecteuclid.org/proceedings/berkeley-symposium-on-mathematical-statistics-and-probability/Proceedings-of-the-Fourth-Berkeley-Symposium-on-Mathematical-Statistics-and/Chapter/On-Measures-of-Entropy-and-Information/bsmsp/1200512181?tab=ChapterArticleLink (last access: 9 June 2022), 1961. a
Sambridge, M.: A Parallel Tempering algorithm for probabilistic sampling and
multimodal optimization, Geophys. J. Int., 196, 357–374,
https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggt342, 2014. a
Scalzo, R., Lindsay, M., Jessell, M., Pirot, G., Giraud, J., Cripps, E., and Cripps, S.: Blockworlds 0.1.0: a demonstration of anti-aliased geophysics for probabilistic inversions of implicit and kinematic geological models, Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 3641–3662, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3641-2022, 2022. a
Scheidt, C. and Caers, J.: Uncertainty quantification in reservoir performance
using distances and kernel methods–application to a west africa deepwater
turbidite reservoir, SPE Journal, 14, 680–692, 2009. a
Scheidt, C., Jeong, C., Mukerji, T., and Caers, J.: Probabilistic falsification
of prior geologic uncertainty with seismic amplitude data: Application to a
turbidite reservoir case, Geophysics, 80, M89–M12, 2015. a
Scheidt, C., Li, L., and Caers, J.: Quantifying uncertainty in subsurface
systems, John Wiley & Sons, 304 pp., ISBN 978-1-119-32586-4, https://www.wiley.com/en-au/Quantifying+Uncertainty+in+Subsurface+Systems-p-9781119325864 (last access: 9 June 2022), 2018. a
Schölkopf, B., Smola, A., and Müller, K.-R.: Kernel principal component
analysis, in: International conference on artificial neural networks,
Springer, 583–588, https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0020217, 1997. a
Schweizer, D., Blum, P., and Butscher, C.: Uncertainty assessment in 3-D geological models of increasing complexity, Solid Earth, 8, 515–530, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-8-515-2017, 2017. a
Shimada, Y., Hirata, Y., Ikeguchi, T., and Aihara, K.: Graph distance for
complex networks, Sci. Rep., 6, 34944, https://doi.org/10.1038/srep34944, 2016. a, b
Suzuki, S. and Caers, J.: A distance-based prior model parameterization for
constraining solutions of spatial inverse problems, Math. Geosci., 40, 445–469, 2008. a
Thiele, S. T., Jessell, M. W., Lindsay, M., Ogarko, V., Wellmann, J. F., and
Pakyuz-Charrier, E.: The topology of geology 1: Topological analysis,
J. Struct. Geol., 91, 27–38, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2016.08.009,
2016. a, b
Tubau, I., Vázquez-Suñé, E., Carrera, J., Valhondo, C., and
Criollo, R.: Quantification of groundwater recharge in urban environments,
Sci. Total Environ., 592, 391–402, 2017. a
Vallender, S.: Calculation of the Wasserstein distance between probability
distributions on the line, Theor. Probab. Appl., 18,
784–786, 1974. a
Wellmann, F. and Caumon, G.: 3-D Structural geological models: Concepts,
methods, and uncertainties, Adv. Geophys., 59, 1–121, 2018. a
Wilcox, R. R.: Introduction to robust estimation and hypothesis testing,
Academic press, 690 pp., https://doi.org/10.1016/C2010-0-67044-1, 2011.
a
Witter, J. B., Trainor-Guitton, W. J., and Siler, D. L.: Uncertainty and risk
evaluation during the exploration stage of geothermal development: A review,
Geothermics, 78, 233–242, 2019. a
Short summary
Results of a survey launched among practitioners in the mineral industry show that despite recognising the importance of uncertainty quantification it is not very well performed due to lack of data, time requirements, poor tracking of interpretations and relative complexity of uncertainty quantification. To alleviate the latter, we provide an open-source set of local and global indicators to measure geological uncertainty among an ensemble of geological models.
Results of a survey launched among practitioners in the mineral industry show that despite...
