Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar a este item: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/276890
COMPARTIR / EXPORTAR:
logo share SHARE logo core CORE BASE
Visualizar otros formatos: MARC | Dublin Core | RDF | ORE | MODS | METS | DIDL | DATACITE

Invitar a revisión por pares abierta
Título

Comparison of inference methods for estimating semivariogram model parameters and their uncertainty: the case of small data sets

AutorPardo-Igúzquiza, Eulogio ; Dowd, Peter A.
Palabras claveMaximum likelihood
cross-validation
least squares
chi-squared field
root mean square error
Fecha de publicación12-jun-2012
EditorElsevier
CitaciónComputers & Geosciences, vol.50, 2013, 154-164
ResumenThe semivariogram model is the fundamental component in all geostatistical applications and its inference is an issue of significant practical interest. The semivariogram model is defined by a mathematical function, the parameters of which are usually estimated from the experimental data. There are important application areas in which small data sets are the norm; rainfall estimation from rain gauge data and transmissivity estimation from pumping test data are two examples from, respectively, surface and subsurface hydrology. Thus a benchmark problem in geostatistics is deciding on the most appropriate method for the inference of the semivariogram model. The various methods for semivariogram inference can be classified as indirect methods, in which there is an intermediate step of calculating the experimental semivariogram, and direct approaches that obtain the model parameter values directly as the values that minimize some objective function. To avoid subjectivity in fitting models to experimental semivariograms, ordinary least squares (OLS), weighted least squares (WLS) and generalized least squares (GLS) are often used. Uncertainty evaluation in indirect methods is done using computationally intensive resampling procedures such as the bootstrap method. Direct methods include parametric methods, such as maximum likelihood (ML) and maximum likelihood cross-validation (MLCV), and non-parametric methods, such as minimization of cross-validation statistics (CV). The bases for comparing the previous methods are the sampling distribution of the various parameters and the “goodness” of the uncertainty evaluation in a sense that we define. The final questions to be answered are (1) which is the best method for estimating each of the semivariogram parameters? (2) Which is the best method for assessing the uncertainty of each of the parameters? (3) Which method best selects the functional form of the semivariogram from among a set of options? and (4) which is the best method that jointly addresses all the previous questions?
Versión del editorhttps://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0098300412001975?token=91F7C1B21509B2A1A5D605EE80F93678625305D7BC45CBEE3062F587557215967177543C0F69820B6404170CEF88739F
URIhttp://hdl.handle.net/10261/276890
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2012.06.002
ISSN1873-7803
Aparece en las colecciones: (IGME) Artículos




Ficheros en este ítem:
Fichero Descripción Tamaño Formato
comparison_inference_methods_2012.pdfArtículo principal555,34 kBAdobe PDFVista previa
Visualizar/Abrir
Mostrar el registro completo

CORE Recommender

Page view(s)

23
checked on 23-abr-2024

Download(s)

54
checked on 23-abr-2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric

Altmetric


NOTA: Los ítems de Digital.CSIC están protegidos por copyright, con todos los derechos reservados, a menos que se indique lo contrario.