A segmentation approach for stochastic geological modeling using hidden Markov random fields.

*(English)*Zbl 1365.86025Summary: Stochastic modeling methods and uncertainty quantification are important tools for gaining insight into the geological variability of subsurface structures. Previous attempts at geologic inversion and interpretation can be broadly categorized into geostatistics and process-based modeling. The choice of a suitable modeling technique directly depends on the modeling applications and the available input data. Modern geophysical techniques provide us with regional data sets in two- or three-dimensional spaces with high resolution either directly from sensors or indirectly from geophysical inversion. Existing methods suffer certain drawbacks in producing accurate and precise (with quantified uncertainty) geological models using these data sets. In this work, a stochastic modeling framework is proposed to extract the subsurface heterogeneity from multiple and complementary types of data. Subsurface heterogeneity is considered as the “hidden link” between multiple spatial data sets. Hidden Markov
random field models are employed to perform three-dimensional segmentation, which is the representation of the “hidden link”. Finite Gaussian mixture models are adopted to characterize the statistical parameters of multiple data sets. The uncertainties are simulated via a Gibbs sampling process within a Bayesian inference framework. The proposed modeling method is validated and is demonstrated using numerical examples. It is shown that the proposed stochastic modeling framework is a promising tool for three-dimensional segmentation in the field of geological modeling and geophysics.

##### MSC:

86A32 | Geostatistics |

86A60 | Geological problems |

60J22 | Computational methods in Markov chains |

60G60 | Random fields |

##### Keywords:

geological modeling; geostatistics; uncertainty quantification; Gibbs sampling; heterogeneity
PDF
BibTeX
XML
Cite

\textit{H. Wang} et al., Math. Geosci. 49, No. 2, 145--177 (2017; Zbl 1365.86025)

Full Text:
DOI

##### References:

[1] | Attias, H, A variational Bayesian framework for graphical models, Adv Neural Inf Process Syst, 12, 209-215, (2000) |

[2] | Auerbach, S; Schaeben, H, Computer-aided geometric design of geologic surfaces and bodies, Math Geol, 22, 957-987, (1990) · Zbl 0964.86512 |

[3] | Babak, O; Deutsch, CV, An intrinsic model of coregionalization that solves variance inflation in collocated cokriging, Comput Geosci UK, 35, 603-614, (2009) |

[4] | Besag, J, Spatial interaction and the statistical analysis of lattice systems, J R Stat Soc Ser B (Methodol), 36, 192-236, (1974) · Zbl 0327.60067 |

[5] | Besag, J, On the statistical analysis of dirty pictures, J R Stat Soc, 48, 259-302, (1986) · Zbl 0609.62150 |

[6] | Biernacki, C; Celeux, G; Govaert, G, Assessing a mixture model for clustering with the integrated completed likelihood, IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell, 22, 719-725, (2000) |

[7] | Blanchin, R; Chilès, J-P, The channel tunnel: geostatistical prediction of the geological conditions and its validation by the reality, Math Geol, 25, 963-974, (1993) |

[8] | Caers J (2011) Modeling uncertainty in the earth sciences. Wiley, Chichester · Zbl 1329.86001 |

[9] | Caers J, Zhang T (2004) Multiple-point geostatistics: a quantitative vehicle for integrating geologic analogs into multiple reservoir models. G. M. Grammer, P. M. ldquoMitchrdquo Harris, and G. P. Eberli, Integration of outcrop and modern analogs in reservoir modeling. AAPG Memoir 80:383-394 |

[10] | Celeux, G; Forbes, F; Peyrard, N, EM procedures using Mean field-like approximations for Markov model-based image segmentation, Pattern Recognit, 36, 131-144, (2003) · Zbl 1010.68158 |

[11] | Celeux, G; Govaert, G, Gaussian parsimonious clustering models, Pattern Recognit, 28, 781-793, (1995) |

[12] | Chugunova, TL; Hu, LY, Multiple-point simulations constrained by continuous auxiliary data, Math Geosci, 40, 133-146, (2008) · Zbl 1143.86307 |

[13] | Cline, HE; Lorensen, WE; Kikinis, R; Jolesz, F, Three-dimensional segmentation of MR images of the head using probability and connectivity, J Comput Assist Tomogr, 14, 1037-1045, (1990) |

[14] | Cross GR, Jain AK (1983) Markov random field texture models. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 5:25-39 |

[15] | Daly C (2005) Higher order models using entropy, Markov random fields and sequential simulation, Geostatistics Banff 2004. Springer, New York, pp 215-224 · Zbl 1366.62159 |

[16] | Vries, LM; Carrera, J; Falivene, O; Gratacós, O; Slooten, LJ, Application of multiple point geostatistics to non-stationary images, Math Geosci, 41, 29-42, (2009) · Zbl 1162.86327 |

[17] | Elkateb, T; Chalaturnyk, R; Robertson, PK, An overview of soil heterogeneity: quantification and implications on geotechnical field problems, Can Geotech J, 40, 1-15, (2003) |

[18] | Figueiredo, MA; Jain, AK, Unsupervised learning of finite mixture models, IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell, 24, 381-396, (2002) |

[19] | Fjortoft, R; Delignon, Y; Pieczynski, W; Sigelle, M; Tupin, F, Unsupervised classification of radar images using hidden Markov chains and hidden Markov random fields, IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens, 41, 675-686, (2003) |

[20] | Forbes, F; Peyrard, N, Hidden Markov random field model selection criteria based on Mean field-like approximations, IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell, 25, 1089-1101, (2003) |

[21] | Fraley, C; Raftery, AE, How many clusters? which clustering method? answers via model-based cluster analysis, Comput J, 41, 578-588, (1998) · Zbl 0920.68038 |

[22] | Fraley, C; Raftery, AE, Model-based clustering, discriminant analysis, and density estimation, J Am Stat Assoc, 97, 611-631, (2002) · Zbl 1073.62545 |

[23] | Gao, D, Volume texture extraction for 3D seismic visualization and interpretation, Geophysics, 68, 1294-1302, (2003) |

[24] | Geman S, Geman D (1984) Stochastic relaxation, Gibbs distributions, and the Bayesian restoration of images. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 6:721-741 · Zbl 0573.62030 |

[25] | Gonzalez J, Low Y, Gretton A, Guestrin C (2011) Parallel Gibbs sampling: From colored fields to thin junction trees, International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp 324-332 · Zbl 1162.86327 |

[26] | Ising, E, Beitrag zur theorie des ferromagnetismus, Zeitschrift für Physik A Hadrons Nuclei, 31, 253-258, (1925) |

[27] | Jessell, MW; Valenta, RK, Structural geophysics: integrated structural and geophysical modelling, Comput Methods Geosci, 15, 303-324, (1996) |

[28] | Kindermann R, Snell JL (1980) Markov random fields and their applications. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI · Zbl 1229.60003 |

[29] | Koch, J; He, X; Jensen, KH; Refsgaard, JC, Challenges in conditioning a stochastic geological model of a heterogeneous glacial aquifer to a comprehensive soft data set, Hydrol Earth Syst Sci, 18, 2907-2923, (2014) |

[30] | Koller D, Friedman N (2009) Probabilistic graphical models: principles and techniques. MIT press, Cambridge · Zbl 1183.68483 |

[31] | Koltermann, CE; Gorelick, SM, Heterogeneity in sedimentary deposits: A review of structure-imitating, process-imitating, and descriptive approaches, Water Resour Res, 32, 2617-2658, (1996) |

[32] | Lajaunie, C; Courrioux, G; Manuel, L, Foliation fields and 3D cartography in geology: principles of a method based on potential interpolation, Math Geol, 29, 571-584, (1997) |

[33] | Li, Z; Wang, X; Wang, H; Liang, RY, Quantifying stratigraphic uncertainties by stochastic simulation techniques based on Markov random field, Eng Geol, 201, 106-122, (2016) |

[34] | Mallet, J-L, Discrete smooth interpolation, ACM Trans Gr, 8, 121-144, (1989) · Zbl 0746.68098 |

[35] | Mallet J-LL (2002) Geomodeling. Oxford University Press Inc, Oxford |

[36] | Mann CJ (1993) Uncertainty in geology. Computers in Geology—25 Years of Progress. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 241-254 · Zbl 1143.86307 |

[37] | Mariethoz G, Caers J (2014) Multiple-point geostatistics: stochastic modeling with training images. wiley, New York |

[38] | Mariethoz, G; Renard, P; Cornaton, F; Jaquet, O, Truncated Plurigaussian simulations to characterize aquifer heterogeneity, Ground water, 47, 13-24, (2009) |

[39] | McKenna, SA; Poeter, EP, Field example of data fusion in site characterization, Water Resour Res, 31, 3229-3240, (1995) |

[40] | McLachlan G, Peel D (2004) Finite mixture models. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ · Zbl 0963.62061 |

[41] | McLachlan GJ, Basford KE (1988) Mixture models. Inference and applications to clustering. Statistics: Textbooks and Monographs. Dekker, New York, p 1 · Zbl 0697.62050 |

[42] | McLachlan GJ, Krishnan T (2007) The EM algorithm and extensions. Wiley-Interscience, New York |

[43] | Norberg, T; Rosén, L; Baran, A; Baran, S, On modelling discrete geological structures as Markov random fields, Math Geol, 34, 63-77, (2002) · Zbl 1033.86006 |

[44] | Pham, DL; Xu, C; Prince, JL, Current methods in medical image segmentation, Ann Rev Biomed Eng, 2, 315-337, (2000) |

[45] | Reitberger, J; Schnörr, C; Krzystek, P; Stilla, U, 3D segmentation of single trees exploiting full waveform LIDAR data, ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens, 64, 561-574, (2009) |

[46] | Rubin, Y; Chen, X; Murakami, H; Hahn, M, A Bayesian approach for inverse modeling, data assimilation, and conditional simulation of spatial random fields, Water Resour Res, 46, w10523, (2010) |

[47] | Rue H, Held L (2005) Gaussian Markov random fields: theory and applications. CRC Press, Boca Raton · Zbl 1093.60003 |

[48] | Solberg, AHS; Taxt, T; Jain, AK, A Markov random field model for classification of multisource satellite imagery, IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens, 34, 100-113, (1996) |

[49] | Strebelle, S, Conditional simulation of complex geological structures using multiple-point statistics, Math Geol, 34, 1-21, (2002) · Zbl 1036.86013 |

[50] | Thornton C (1998) Separability is a learner’s best friend, 4th Neural Computation and Psychology Workshop, 9-11 April 1997. Springer, London, pp 40-46 |

[51] | Toftaker, H; Tjelmeland, H, Construction of binary multi-grid Markov random field prior models from training images, Math Geosci, 45, 383-409, (2013) · Zbl 1321.86034 |

[52] | Tolpekin, VA; Stein, A, Quantification of the effects of land-cover-class spectral separability on the accuracy of Markov-random-field-based superresolution mapping, IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens, 47, 3283-3297, (2009) |

[53] | Wang, X; Li, Z; Wang, H; Rong, Q; Liang, RY, Probabilistic analysis of shield-driven tunnel in multiple strata considering stratigraphic uncertainty, Struct Saf, 62, 88-100, (2016) |

[54] | Wellmann, JF, Information theory for correlation analysis and estimation of uncertainty reduction in maps and models, Entropy, 15, 1464-1485, (2013) · Zbl 1302.86031 |

[55] | Wellmann, JF; Regenauer-Lieb, K, Uncertainties have a meaning: information entropy as a quality measure for 3-D geological models, Tectonophysics, 526, 207-216, (2012) |

[56] | Wellmann, JF; Thiele, ST; Lindsay, MD; Jessell, MW, Pynoddy 1.0: an experimental platform for automated 3-D kinematic and potential field modelling, Geosci Model Dev, 9, 1019-1035, (2016) |

[57] | Xie, H; Pierce, LE; Ulaby, FT, SAR Speckle reduction using wavelet denoising and Markov random field modeling, IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens, 40, 2196-2212, (2002) |

[58] | Yuen, KV; Mu, HQ, Peak ground acceleration estimation by linear and nonlinear models with reduced order Monte Carlo simulation, Comput Aided Civil Infrastruct Eng, 26, 30-47, (2011) |

[59] | Zhang, Y; Brady, M; Smith, S, Segmentation of brain MR images through a hidden Markov random field model and the expectation-maximization algorithm, IEEE Trans Med Imaging, 20, 45-57, (2001) |

[60] | Zhu, H; Zhang, L, Characterizing geotechnical anisotropic spatial variations using random field theory, Can Geotech J, 50, 723-734, (2013) |

This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. It attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming the completeness or perfect precision of the matching.