2017
DOI: 10.1007/s00477-017-1504-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Markov based transition probability geostatistics in groundwater applications: assumptions and limitations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 111 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…An example of a trickle-down effect is how dell'Arcipreti et al ( 2012) becomes a main reference in He et al (2017) for promoting application of mps, then (He et al, 2017) becomes a main reference in Langousis et al (2018) for criticizing the 3-D Markov chain modeling approach of Carle and Fogg (1997). To "reveal" limitations of Markov chain models, Langousis et al (2018) execute a "simple test-case" of a 2-D dipping layer with a coordinate system anchored in the vertical and horizontal directions of their statistical analysis.…”
Section: Methods Comparisonmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…An example of a trickle-down effect is how dell'Arcipreti et al ( 2012) becomes a main reference in He et al (2017) for promoting application of mps, then (He et al, 2017) becomes a main reference in Langousis et al (2018) for criticizing the 3-D Markov chain modeling approach of Carle and Fogg (1997). To "reveal" limitations of Markov chain models, Langousis et al (2018) execute a "simple test-case" of a 2-D dipping layer with a coordinate system anchored in the vertical and horizontal directions of their statistical analysis.…”
Section: Methods Comparisonmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An example of a trickle-down effect is how dell'Arcipreti et al ( 2012) becomes a main reference in He et al (2017) for promoting application of mps, then (He et al, 2017) becomes a main reference in Langousis et al (2018) for criticizing the 3-D Markov chain modeling approach of Carle and Fogg (1997). To "reveal" limitations of Markov chain models, Langousis et al (2018) execute a "simple test-case" of a 2-D dipping layer with a coordinate system anchored in the vertical and horizontal directions of their statistical analysis. Neither dell' Arciprete et al (2012) nor Langousis et al (2018) appeared to grasp the concept that bivariate geostatistical analysis and simulation should be applied in a geologically-based coordinate system, as demonstrated for at least 30 years (e.g., Gomez-Hernandez and Srivastava, 1990).…”
Section: Methods Comparisonmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The latter makes use of available lithological/ sedimentological data to evaluate transition probabilities between facies, which are then interpreted through Markov-chain modeling techniques. This approach, as well as other Markov-chain based methods (e.g., Elfeki and Dekking 2001;Li 2007;Langousis et al 2018), also (1) enables one to include information on spatial juxtapositional tendencies and soft conditioning data and (2) is deemed as more accurate than its covariance-based counterparts to represent volumetric proportions, mean lengths, and connectivity patterns driven by facies distributions (Weissmann et al 1999;He et al 2014He et al , 2015Koch et al 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%