Interpolation algorithm ranking using cross-validation and the role of smoothing effect. A coal zone example
For a property measured at several locations, interpolation algorithms provide a unique and smooth function yielding a locally realistic estimation at any point within the sampled region. Previous studies searching for optimal interpolation strategies by measuring cross-validation error have not fou...
| Autores: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión aceptada para publicación |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2010 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Varias* (Consorci de Biblioteques Universitáries de Catalunya, Centre de Serveis Científics i Acadèmics de Catalunya) |
| Repositorio: | Recercat. Dipósit de la Recerca de Catalunya |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:recercat.cat:2445/101823 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/2445/101823 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Fàcies (Geologia) Models matemàtics Facies (Geology) Mathematical models |
| Sumario: | For a property measured at several locations, interpolation algorithms provide a unique and smooth function yielding a locally realistic estimation at any point within the sampled region. Previous studies searching for optimal interpolation strategies by measuring cross-validation error have not found consistent rankings; this fact was traditionally explained by differences in the distribution, spatial variability and sampling patterns of the datasets. This article demonstrates that ranking differences are also related to interpolation smoothing, an important factor controlling cross-validation errors that was not considered previously. Indeed, smoothing in average-based interpolation algorithms depends on the number of neighbouring data points used to obtain each interpolated value, among other algorithm parameters. A 3D dataset of calorific value measurements from a coal zone is used to demonstrate that different algorithm rankings can be obtained solely by varying the number of neighbouring points considered (i.e. whilst maintaining the distribution, spatial variability and sampling pattern of the dataset). These results suggest that cross-validation error cannot be used as a unique criterion to compare the performance of interpolation algorithms, as has been done in the past, and indicate that smoothing should be also 26 coupled to search for optimum and geologically realistic interpolation algorithms. |
|---|