Natural Resources Research

, Volume 26, Issue 4, pp 457–464 | Cite as

Machine Learning of Mineralization-Related Geochemical Anomalies: A Review of Potential Methods

Review Paper

Abstract

Research on processing geochemical data and identifying geochemical anomalies has made important progress in recent decades. Fractal/multi-fractal models, compositional data analysis, and machine learning (ML) are three widely used techniques in the field of geochemical data processing. In recent years, ML has been applied to model the complex and unknown multivariate geochemical distribution and extract meaningful elemental associations related to mineralization or environmental pollution. It is expected that ML will have a more significant role in geochemical mapping with the development of big data science and artificial intelligence in the near future. In this study, state-of-the-art applications of ML in identifying geochemical anomalies were reviewed, and the advantages and disadvantages of ML for geochemical prospecting were investigated. More applications are needed to demonstrate the advantage of ML in solving complex problems in the geosciences.

Keywords

Geochemical prospecting Geochemical anomalies Fractal model Compositional data analysis Machine learning 

Introduction

In recent years, increasing attention has been paid to geochemical data processing and identification of geochemical anomalies related to mineralization or environmental pollution. Based on literature review of papers in three journals: Journal of Geochemical Exploration, Geochemistry: Exploration, Environment, Analysis, and Applied Geochemistry in recent decades, there are three hot topics in geochemical data processing.

The first hot topic is the application of fractal/multi-fractal models. Cheng et al. (1994) proposed the concentration–area (C–A) model, which has become a basic tool for analyzing exploration geochemical data (Carranza 2008; Zuo et al. 2016). The C–A model is also known as Cheng–Agterberg model after the last names of the first two authors of the seminal paper. Based on the C–A model, the spectrum–area multi-fractal model (Cheng et al. 2000) and local singularity analysis (LSA) (Cheng 2007) were developed. Fractal/multi-fractal models consider both the frequency and spatial variances of geochemical patterns and therefore are efficient for identification of geochemical anomalies. Currently, fractal/multi-fractal modeling, especially LSA, of geochemical data in support of GIS is a hot research direction in geochemical prospecting (e.g., Carranza 2010; Zuo 2011; Luz et al. 2014; Huang and Zhao 2015; Zuo and Wang 2016; Zuo et al. 2009, 2013a, 2013b, 2015, 2016; Bucciant and Zuo 2016; Chen et al. 2016; Zhao et al. 2017).

The second hot topic is the application of compositional data analysis. Compositional data are components of samples measured as proportions or percentages of the whole sample, and therefore, each component only carries relative information (Aitchison 1986). There is growing awareness of the problem of closure in the analysis of compositional data, which leads to spurious correlations among variables. Three methods, the additive (Aitchison 1986), centered (Aitchison 1986), and isometric (ilr) (Egozcue et al. 2003) log-ratio transformations have been proposed to address the effects of the closure problem with compositional data. Among these three transformation methods, the ilr is arguably the best choice because it obtains the correct representation of compositional data in Euclidean space. Especially for bivariate and multivariate analyses, geochemical data for major elements (e.g., SiO2, CaO, MgO, K2O) should be preprocessed using log-ratio transformation (e.g., Zuo et al. 2013b; Zuo 2014; Xiong and Zuo 2016b). However, the effects of closure problem on the univariate analysis of trace elements are unclear in practice; it has been pointed out that log-ratio transformation of data for trace elements should be considered in univariate analysis (Filzmoser et al. 2009; McKinley et al. 2016). More studies on univariate analysis of trace elements from a compositional data perspective are needed in mapping of geochemical anomalies. The above first two hot topics have also been researched by the International Association for Mathematical Geosciences (IAMG) and were singled out for special consideration among a list of IAMG potential special outreach topics (https://www.iamg.org/images/File/documents/Newsletters/NewslettersHSP/NL89lo.pdf).

The third hot topic is the application of machine learning (ML) methods to modeling of geochemical data. Although there are few publications on this topic compared to the first two topics, ML is potentially powerful for geochemical mapping. The aim of this paper is to review the state-of-the-art applications of ML in identifying geochemical anomalies and to summarize the advantages and disadvantages of applications of ML in the geosciences in general.

Machine Learning

Artificial intelligence (AI) is the science and engineering of making intelligent machines, especially intelligent computer programs. It is concerned with the task of using computers to understand human intelligence, but AI does not have to confine itself to methods that are biologically observable. As a subfield of AI, the basic task of ML is to use algorithms to analyze and learn from data, in order to make a determination or prediction in various fields. Based on the nature of learning feedback available to learning systems, ML methods are typically classified as supervised learning, unsupervised learning, and reinforcement learning (Russell and Norvig 2010).

In supervised learning, each sample consists of an input object and a desired output. A supervised learning method is used to analyze training samples and generate a function used for mapping inputs to outputs. In unsupervised learning, each training sample is unlabeled. The aim of an unsupervised learning method is to produce an inferred function and discover the hidden structure from the unlabeled data. Reinforcement learning focuses on how the learning system ought to behave in an environment in order to receive the feedback about rewards or punishments. Between supervised learning and unsupervised learning is semi-supervised learning, suitable for training samples that contain a few labeled data and several unlabeled data (Russell and Norvig 2010; Zhou et al. 2017).

The advantage of ML is that they can learn and approximate complex nonlinear mapping, and exploit the information contained in a dataset without assumption of data distribution. Therefore, ML methods have been widely used in a wide range of applications such as classification, anomaly detection, pattern recognition, and dimensionality reduction.

Among various ML methods, artificial neural networks (ANN), support vector machine (SVM), random forests (RF), logistic regression (LR), and the Bayesian network generally belong to supervised learning group. The autoencoder network, self-organizing map (SOM), and K-means clustering belong to unsupervised learning group.

Artificial neural network is a mathematical model of human brain neurons (Haykin 1999). Multilayer perceptron, usually trained with a backpropagation algorithm, is one of the most commonly used ANN models. Multilayer perceptron consists of an input layer, one or more hidden layers, and an output layer. The output from the previous layer of neurons is used as the input for the next layer of neurons. The gradient algorithms are used to update the weights during the training phase and to achieve the purpose of minimizing misclassification errors.

Support vector machine, derived from statistical learning theory and Vapnik–Chervonenkis (VC) dimension (Vapnik 1995), has been widely used for classification and regression. The method first constructs a hyperplane in a higher-dimensional space and then finds an optimal hyperplane that maximizes the margin between the classes. The performance of the SVM model is significantly influenced by the selection of kernel functions, such as linear, polynomial, sigmoid, and radial basis (RBF) functions.

Random forest is an ensemble learning method that combines a set of decision trees for classification and prediction (Breiman 2001). The bootstrapping technique is used to randomly choose the training samples from the original data to build the RF model. About two-thirds of the original data are used to train the model, and the remaining data are used to validate the model. The most important parameters for RF are the number of trees and predictors used to split each node of the trees. Generally, the number of variables for splitting each node of the trees should be less than log2 M + 1, where M is the total number of the input (Breiman 2001). In addition, the RF model is capable of estimating the relative importance of each variable by observing the increased prediction error when that variable is removed while keeping the left variables unchanged.

Logistic regression aims at constructing a multivariate relationship between a dependent variable (e.g., deposits or non-deposits) and set of independent variables (e.g., faults, granites, geochemical anomaly). The dependent variable is dichotomous (0 or 1), while the independent variable does not necessarily have a normal distribution, and can be interval, dichotomous, or categorical (Menard 2001). The coefficients of LR are estimated using maximum likelihood estimation (Cox and Snell 1989). Subsequently, the probability of a specific event occurring can be estimated via LR.

A Bayesian network is a directed acyclic graph, which consists of nodes and directed edges (Pearl 1988). The nodes represent random variables and edges represent conditional dependencies which can be expressed using the conditional probability. When the nodes between any of the variables are not connected, the variables are conditionally independent and the conditional probability is equal to 0. The visualization of interrelations and dependencies of the model parameters make the Bayesian network model intelligible for complex problem analysis.

The autoencoder network, derived from ANN, is an unsupervised learning method to learn a representation or encoding of the data (Bengio 2009). The aim of the autoencoder network is to minimize the difference between the input and output. Various variants of backpropagation are used to train an autoencoder. However, when the hidden layers of the network are too many, the back propagated errors to the first layer are insignificant. Hinton and Salakhutdinov (2006) proposed a deep autoencoder by pre-training the network using a restricted Boltzmann machine and fine-tuning the network using backpropagation.

Self-organizing map is another type of ANN that is trained using unsupervised learning. It is an effective tool for visualizing high-dimensional data and mapping the data into a low-dimensional feature space (Kohonen 1998). The method consists of several neurons which associated with a weight vector that has the same dimension as the input sample and a position in the map. The purpose of SOM is to detect correlations in their input and also to recognize groups of similar input vectors.

K-means clustering is used to solve the problem of data clustering in data mining (Hartigan and Wong 1979). The method aims to separate n observations into k clusters, and the samples in each cluster have the nearest distance between each other. It first selects k number of points as the initial centroids, and then calculates and clusters according to the distance between each sample and the initial centroids, and finally updates the cluster centroids until the cluster centroids are unchanged. An appropriate selection of k is essential to the method performance; thus, diagnostic checks are necessary for the determination of optimum k while performing k-means.

Applications in Geosciences

ML methods have been applied in the geosciences. One of the most commonly used ML methods, ANN, has proved to be a powerful tool for the classification and identification of the minerals (Thompson et al. 2001; Baykan and Yılmaz 2010). Cracknell and Reading (2014) compared five ML algorithms for geological mapping, and demonstrated that RF is a good first choice for classifying lithology. Recently, ML has been a popular research topic in the field of mineral prospectivity mapping (MPM). Some supervised classification methods, such as ANN (Singer and Kouda 1996, 1999; Harris and Pan 1999; Brown et al. 2000, 2003a, 2003b; Bougrain et al. 2003; Rigol-Sanchez et al. 2003; Harris et al. 2003; Porwal et al. 2003; Skabar 2005, 2007; Behnia 2007; Nykänen 2008; Oh and Lee 2010), SVM (Zuo and Carranza 2011; Abedi et al. 2012), RF (Rodriguez-Galiano et al. 2014; Carranza and Laborte 2015a, 2015b, 2016; Zhang et al. 2016; Gao et al. 2016), Bayesian classifiers (Porwal et al. 2006; Porwal and Carranza 2008), LR (Agterberg 1992; Sahoo and Pandalai 1999; Harris et al. 2001; Raines and Mihalasky 2002; Daneshfar et al. 2006; Nykänen and Ojala 2007; Mejía-Herrera et al. 2015), restricted Boltzmann machine (Chen 2015), extreme learning machine (Chen and Wu 2017a), decision trees (DT) (Reddy and Bonham-Carter 1991; Chen et al. 2014a) and cost-sensitive learning (Xiong and Zuo 2017) have been applied to the mapping of mineral prospectivity. Rodriguez-Galiano et al. (2015) compared ANN, DT, RF and SVM based on four criteria, and demonstrated that RF outperformed the other three ML methods for MPM.

In addition, owing to the complexity of geological settings, the distribution of the geochemical data is usually unknown, and so some ML-based anomaly detection techniques have been introduced to the field of geochemical anomaly detection. These methods have the advantage that no assumptions regarding data distribution are required, and can well manage nonlinear relations among geochemical data. For example, Twarakavi et al. (2006) applied SVM and robust least-square SVM to map arsenic concentrations using the gold concentration distribution present within the sediments in Alaska. Beucher et al. (2013) applied ANN for soil mapping in the Sirppujoki River catchment area, southwestern Finland. Chen et al. (2014b) used a continuous restricted Boltzmann machine to identify multivariate geochemical anomaly in southern Jilin province of China. Gonbadi et al. (2015) applied supervised ML methods to separate porphyry Cu-related geochemical anomalies from background in the Kerman Province of Iran. O’Brien et al. (2015) applied RF to identify gahnite compositions as an exploration guide to Broken Hill-type Pb–Zn–Ag deposits in the Broken Hill domain of Australia. Zhao et al. (2016) applied an ANN to extract geochemical anomalies related to Cu–Au mineralization in Shaanxi Province, China. Xiong and Zuo (2016a) used a deep autoencoder network to integrate multi-elements associated with Fe mineralization in Fujian Province, China. Kirkwood et al. (2016) used quantile regression forests to map regional soil geochemistry in southwest England using geophysics, height and remote sensing, and the resultant maps are more useful than their spatially interpolated univariant equivalents, providing increased detail, accuracy and interpretability. Zaremotlagh and Hezarkhani (2017) applied the DT and ANN to recognize the geochemical distribution patterns of LREE in the Choghart deposit, Central Iran. Chen and Wu (2017b) applied one-class SVM to identify multivariate geochemical anomalies from stream sediment survey data of the Lalingzaohuo District in Qinghai Province, China. These case studies have been demonstrated that ML models are useful tools for identifying multivariate geochemical anomalies.

Discussion and Conclusions

In the field of geochemical prospecting, classical multivariate analysis methods such as principal component analysis (PCA) and factor analysis (FA) have been traditionally applied to reduce multi-dimensional geochemical data to several components or factors and identify multivariate geochemical anomalies (Fig. 1). Geoscientists then investigated each principal component or factor to map geochemical anomalies or geological units. Both PCA and FA are based on the correlation or covariance matrix. Therefore, to avoid spurious correlations between geochemical variables, a log-ratio transformation should be applied to open the closed geochemical data (Reimann et al. 2008). The advantages of classical multivariate analysis, such as PCA, are that it can provide a clear structure of data components (e.g., loadings of each element in the principal component), and sometimes each data component can be interpreted as anomalies related to either mineralization/pollutions or specific geological units In other words, results of PCA can be interpreted from geological and geochemical perspectives. For instance, Grunsky and Smee (1999) applied PCA to identify several distinct elemental associations and populations from multi-element geochemistry, and interpreted the third component of the multivariate data as Au-related anomaly. Grunsky et al. (2017) applied multivariate statistical analysis to log-ratio transformed multi-element near-surface geochemical data to predict the major crustal blocks of the Australian continent. It is known that classical methods such as PCA assume that data satisfy a known multivariate probability distribution (e.g., multivariate Gaussian distribution) (Reimann et al. 2008). However, exploration geochemical data, especially trace elements, usually exhibit a complex frequency distribution and do not obey a normal distribution (Chen et al. 2014b), resulting in uncertainty in applying these methods. In addition, results of classical PCA are sensitive to outliers.
Figure 1

Comparing classical multivariate analysis and machine learning methods for processing geochemical data

ML methods have the potential to model complex and nonlinear systems, and they are expected to model unknown multivariate geochemical distributions that capture complex and multistage geological events. Several successfully case studies have demonstrated that ML can successfully integrate multi-element geochemical data and extract geochemical anomalies related to mineralization (e.g., Chen et al. 2014b; Xiong and Zuo 2016a). For example, anomalous patterns obtained from ML model have a strong spatial correlation with known mineralization/occurrences (Xiong and Zuo 2016a). However, some ML methods are ‘black box’ techniques and the inner structure of multi-elements is usually unknown to geoscientists (Fig. 1), leading to lack of information for geological interpretation. In addition, most ML models involve complex mathematical equations and computer programs that are not easily understood by many geoscientists. Therefore, the application of ML in the geosciences requires having a good background in mathematics and computers. Meanwhile, various ML models are available and pose results in difficulty to users on the selection of ML methods that suitable for a particular research problem.

ML is a large family of analytical tools. Until now, only a few ML methods have been applied in the geosciences. More applications are needed to demonstrate the advantages of ML in solving complex geological, geochemical, and geophysical problems. Each ML model has different parameters, and optimizing each parameter to obtain optimum performance is another challenge in the geosciences. In addition, geological and geochemical patterns are linked to spatial variability, heterogeneity, and anisotropy. The question of how to integrate these spatial characteristics of spatial patterns into ML model for improving the performance of ML in the geosciences should be further explored. Meanwhile, educating geoscientists on the benefits of applying ML to geological problems is an important outreach objective.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Dr. John Carranza and two anonymous reviewers for their edits and comments that improved the manuscript. The author also thanks Yihui Xiong from the China University of Geosciences for preparing the figure and checking the references. This research benefited from the joint financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 41522206) and MOST Special Fund from the State Key Laboratory of Geological Processes and Mineral Resources, China University of Geosciences (MSFGPMR03-3).

References

  1. Abedi, M., Norouzi, G. H., & Bahroudi, A. (2012). Support vector machine for multi-classification of mineral prospectivity areas. Computers & Geosciences, 46, 272–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agterberg, F. P. (1992). Combining indicator patterns in weights of evidence modeling for resource evaluation. Nonrenewable Resources, 1, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aitchison, J. (1986). The statistical analysis of compositional data. London: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baykan, N. A., & Yılmaz, N. (2010). Mineral identification using color spaces and artificial neural networks. Computers & Geosciences, 36, 91–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Behnia, P. (2007). Application of radial basis functional link networks to exploration for Proterozoic mineral deposits in Central Iran. Natural Resources Research, 16, 147–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bengio, Y. (2009). Learning deep architectures for AI. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, 2, 1–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beucher, A., Österholm, P., Martinkauppi, A., Edén, P., & Fröjdö, S. (2013). Artificial neural network for acid sulfate soil mapping: Application to the Sirppujoki River catchment area, south-western Finland. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 125, 46–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bougrain, L., Gonzalez, M., Bouchot, V., Cassard, D., Lips, A. L. W., Alexandre, F., et al. (2003). Knowledge recovery for continental-scale mineral exploration by neural networks. Natural Resources Research, 12, 173–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Breiman, L. (2001). Random forests. Machine Learning, 45, 5–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown, W. M., Gedeon, T. D., & Groves, D. I. (2003a). Use of noise to augment training data: a neural network method of mineral–potential mapping in regions of limited known deposit examples. Natural Resources Research, 12, 141–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown, W. M., Gedeon, T. D., Groves, D. I., & Barnes, R. G. (2000). Artificial neural networks: a new method for mineral prospectivity mapping. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, 47, 757–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown, W. M., Groves, D. I., & Gedeon, T. D. (2003b). Use of fuzzy membership input layers to combine subjective geological knowledge and empirical data in a neural network method for mineral-potential mapping. Natural Resources Research, 12, 183–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bucciant, A., & Zuo, R. (2016). Weathering reactions and isometric log-ratio coordinates: Do they speak to each other? Applied Geochemistry, 75, 189–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carranza, E. J. M. (2008). Geochemical anomaly and mineral prospectivity mapping in GIS. Handbook of exploration and environmental geochemistry (Vol. 11). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  15. Carranza, E. J. M. (2010). Catchment basin modelling of stream sediment anomalies revisited: incorporation of EDA and fractal analysis. Geochemistry: Exploration, Environment, Analysis, 10, 365–381.Google Scholar
  16. Carranza, E. J. M., & Laborte, A. G. (2015a). Random forest predictive modeling of mineral prospectivity with small number of prospects and data with missing values in Abra (Philippines). Computers & Geosciences, 74, 60–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carranza, E. J. M., & Laborte, A. G. (2015b). Data-driven predictive mapping of gold prospectivity, Baguio district, Philippines: Application of Random Forests algorithm. Ore Geology Reviews, 71, 777–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Carranza, E. J. M., & Laborte, A. G. (2016). Data-driven predictive modeling of mineral prospectivity using random forests: A case study in Catanduanes Island (Philippines). Natural Resources Research, 25, 35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chen, Y. (2015). Mineral potential mapping with a restricted Boltzmann machine. Ore Geology Reviews, 71, 749–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chen, C., He, B., & Zeng, Z. (2014a). A method for mineral prospectivity mapping integrating C4. 5 decision tree, weights-of-evidence and m-branch smoothing techniques: A case study in the eastern Kunlun Mountains, China. Earth Science Informatics, 7, 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chen, Y., Lu, L., & Li, X. (2014b). Application of continuous restricted Boltzmann machine to identify multivariate geochemical anomaly. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 140, 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chen, Y., & Wu, W. (2017a). Mapping mineral prospectivity using an extreme learning machine regression. Ore Geology Reviews, 80, 200–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chen, Y., & Wu, W. (2017b). Application of one-class support vector machine to quickly identify multivariate anomalies from geochemical exploration data. Geochemistry: Exploration, Environment, Analysis. doi: 10.1144/geochem2016-024.Google Scholar
  24. Chen, X., Zheng, Y., Xu, R., Wang, H., Jiang, X., Yan, H., et al. (2016). Application of classical statistics and multifractals to delineate Au mineralization-related geochemical anomalies from stream sediment data: a case study in Xinghai-Zeku, Qinghai, China. Geochemistry: Exploration, Environment, Analysis, 6, 253–264.Google Scholar
  25. Cheng, Q. (2007). Mapping singularities with stream sediment geochemical data for prediction of undiscovered mineral deposits in Gejiu, Yunnan Province, China. Ore Geology Reviews, 32, 314–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cheng, Q., Agterberg, F. P., & Ballantyne, S. B. (1994). The separation of geochemical anomalies from background by fractal methods. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 51, 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cheng, Q., Xu, Y., & Grunsky, E. (2000). Integrated spatial and spectrum method for geochemical anomaly separation. Natural Resources Research, 9, 43–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cox, D. R., & Snell, E. J. (1989). Analysis of binary data. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  29. Cracknell, M. J., & Reading, A. M. (2014). Geological mapping using remote sensing data: A comparison of five machine learning algorithms, their response to variations in the spatial distribution of training data and the use of explicit spatial information. Computers & Geosciences, 63, 22–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Daneshfar, B., Desrochers, A., & Budkewitsch, P. (2006). Mineral-potential mapping for MVT deposits with limited data sets using Landsat data and geological evidence in the Borden Basin, Northern Baffin Island, Nunavut, Canada. Natural Resources Research, 15, 129–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Egozcue, J. J., Pawlowsky-Glahn, V., Mateu-Figueras, G., & BarceloVidal, C. (2003). Isometric logratio transformations for compositional data analysis. Mathematical Geology, 35, 279–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Filzmoser, P., Hron, K., & Reimann, C. (2009). Univariate statistical analysis of environmental (compositional) data: Problems and possibilities. Science of the Total Environment, 407, 6100–6108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gao, Y., Zhang, Z., Xiong, Y., & Zuo, R. (2016). Mapping mineral prospectivity for Cu polymetallic mineralization in southwest Fujian Province, China. Ore Geology Reviews, 75, 16–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gonbadi, A. B., Tabatabaei, S. H., & Carranza, E. J. M. (2015). Supervised geochemical anomaly detection by pattern recognition. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 157, 81–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Grunsky, E. C., De Caritat, P., & Mueller, U. A. (2017). Using surface regolith geochemistry to map the major crustal blocks of the Australian continent. Gondwana Research. doi: 10.1016/j.gr.2017.02.011.Google Scholar
  36. Grunsky, E. C., & Smee, B. W. (1999). The differentiation of soil types and mineralization from multi-element geochemistry using multivariate methods and digital topography. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 67, 287–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Harris, D., & Pan, G. (1999). Mineral favorability mapping: a comparison of artificial neural networks, logistic regression, and discriminant analysis. Natural Resources Research, 8, 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Harris, J. R., Wilkinson, L., Heather, K., Fumerton, S., Bernier, M. A., Ayer, J., et al. (2001). Application of GIS processing techniques for producing mineral prospectivity maps—A case study: Mesothermal Au in the Swayze Greenstone Belt, Ontario, Canada. Natural Resources Research, 10, 91–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Harris, D., Zurcher, L., Stanley, M., Marlow, J., & Pan, G. (2003). A comparative analysis of favorability mappings by weights of evidence, probabilistic neural networks, discriminant analysis, and logistic regression. Natural Resources Research, 12, 241–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hartigan, J. A., & Wong, M. A. (1979). Algorithm AS 136: A k-means clustering algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C (Applied Statistics), 28, 100–108.Google Scholar
  41. Haykin, S. (1999). Neural networks: A comprehensive foundation (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  42. Hinton, G. E., & Salakhutdinov, R. R. (2006). Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural networks. Science, 313, 504–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Huang, J., & Zhao, P. (2015). Application of a multi-fractal model for identification of Cu, Au and Zn anomalies in Western Yunnan, Southwestern China. Geochemistry: Exploration, Environment, Analysis, 15, 54–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kirkwood, C., Cave, M., Beamish, D., Grebby, S., & Ferreira, A. (2016). A machine learning approach to geochemical mapping. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 167, 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kohonen, T. (1998). The self-organizing map. Neurocomputing, 21, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Luz, F., Mateus, A., Matos, J. X., & Gonçalves, M. A. (2014). Cu- and Zn-soil anomalies in the NE border of the South Portuguese Zone (Iberian Variscides, Portugal) identified by multifractal and geostatistical analyses. Natural Resources Research, 23, 195–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McKinley, J. M., Hron, K., Grunsky, E. C., Reimann, C., De Caritat, P., Filzmoser, P., et al. (2016). The single component geochemical map: Fact or fiction? Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 162, 16–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mejía-Herrera, P., Royer, J. J., Caumon, G., & Cheilletz, A. (2015). Curvature attribute from surface-restoration as predictor variable in Kupferschiefer copper potentials. Natural Resources Research, 24, 275–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Menard, S. (2001). Applied logistic regression analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.Google Scholar
  50. Nykänen, V. (2008). Radial basis functional link nets used as a prospectivity mapping tool for orogenic gold deposits within the Central Lapland Greenstone Belt, Northern Fennoscandian Shield. Natural Resources Research, 17, 29–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nykänen, V., & Ojala, V. J. (2007). Spatial analysis techniques as successful mineral-potential mapping tools for orogenic gold deposits in the Northern Fennoscandian Shield, Finland. Natural Resources Research, 16, 85–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. O’Brien, J. J., Spry, P. G., Nettleton, D., Xu, R., & Teale, G. S. (2015). Using Random Forests to distinguish gahnite compositions as an exploration guide to Broken Hill-type Pb–Zn–Ag deposits in the Broken Hill domain, Australia. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 149, 74–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Oh, H. J., & Lee, S. (2010). Application of artificial neural network for gold–silver deposits potential mapping: a case study of Korea. Natural Resources Research, 19, 103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pearl, J. (1988). Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: Networks of plausible inference by Judea Pearl (p. 552). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  55. Porwal, A., & Carranza, E. J. M. (2008). Classifiers for modelling of mineral potential. In O. Pourret, P. Naïm, & B. Marcot (Eds.), Bayesian networks: A practical guide to applications (pp. 149–171). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Porwal, A., Carranza, E. J. M., & Hale, M. (2003). Artificial neural networks for mineral-potential mapping: a case study from Aravalli Province, Western India. Natural Resources Research, 12, 155–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Porwal, A., Carranza, E. J. M., & Hale, M. (2006). Bayesian network classifiers for mineral potential mapping. Computers & Geosciences, 32, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Raines, G. L., & Mihalasky, M. J. (2002). A reconnaissance method for delineation of tracts for regional-scale mineral-resource assessment based on geologic-map data. Natural Resources Research, 11, 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Reddy, R. K. T., & Bonham-Carter, G. F. (1991). A decision-tree approach to mineral potential mapping in Snow Lake area, Manitoba. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing, 17, 191–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Reimann, C., Filzmoser, P., Garrett, R. G., & Dutter, R. (2008). Statistical data analysis explained: Applied environmental statistics with R (p. 343). Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rigol-Sanchez, J. P., Chica-Olmo, M., & Abarca-Hernandez, F. (2003). Artificial neural networks as a tool for mineral potential mapping with GIS. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 24, 1151–1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rodriguez-Galiano, V., Chica-Olmo, M., & Chica-Rivas, M. (2014). Predictive modelling of gold potential with the integration of multisource information based on random forest: A case study on the Rodalquilar area, Southern Spain. International Journal of Geographic Information Science, 28, 1336–1354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rodriguez-Galiano, V., Sanchez-Castillo, M., Chica-Olmo, M., & Chica-Rivas, M. (2015). Machine learning predictive models for mineral prospectivity: An evaluation of neural networks, random forest, regression trees and support vector machines. Ore Geology Reviews, 71, 804–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2010). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  65. Sahoo, N. R., & Pandalai, H. S. (1999). Integration of sparse geologic information in gold targeting using logistic regression analysis in the Hutti-Maski Schist Belt, Raichur, Karnataka, India—A case study. Natural Resources Research, 8, 233–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Singer, D. A., & Kouda, R. (1996). Application of a feedforward neural network in the search for Kuruko deposits in the Hokuroku district, Japan. Mathematical Geology, 28, 1017–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Singer, D. A., & Kouda, R. (1999). A comparison of the weights-of-evidence method and probabilistic neural networks. Natural Resources Research, 8, 287–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Skabar, A. A. (2005). Mapping mineralization probabilities using multilayer perceptrons. Natural Resources Research, 14, 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Skabar, A. A. (2007). Mineral potential mapping using Bayesian learning for multilayer perceptrons. Mathematical Geology, 39, 439–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Thompson, S., Fueten, F., & Bockus, D. (2001). Mineral identification using artificial neural networks and the rotating polarizer stage. Computers & Geosciences, 27, 1081–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Twarakavi, N. K. C., Misra, D., & Bandopadhyay, S. (2006). Prediction of arsenic in bedrock derived stream sediments at a gold mine site under conditions of sparse data. Natural Resources Research, 15, 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Vapnik, V. (1995). Nature of statistical learning theory. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Xiong, Y., & Zuo, R. (2016a). Recognition of geochemical anomalies using a deep autoencoder network. Computers & Geosciences, 86, 75–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Xiong, Y., & Zuo, R. (2016b). A comparative study of two modes for mapping felsic intrusions using geoinformatics. Applied Geochemistry, 75, 277–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Xiong, Y., & Zuo, R. (2017). Effects of misclassification costs on mapping mineral prospectivity. Ore Geology Reviews, 82, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zaremotlagh, S., & Hezarkhani, A. (2017). The use of decision tree induction and artificial neural networks for recognizing the geochemical distribution patterns of LREE in the Choghart deposit, Central Iran. Journal of African Earth Sciences, 128, 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Zhang, Z., Zuo, R., & Xiong, Y. (2016). A comparative study of fuzzy weights of evidence and random forests for mapping mineral prospectivity for skarn-type Fe deposits in the southwestern Fujian metallogenic belt, China. Science China Earth Sciences, 59, 556–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Zhao, J., Chen, S., & Zuo, R. (2016). Identifying geochemical anomalies associated with Au–Cu mineralization using multifractal and artificial neural network models in the Ningqiang district, Shaanxi, China. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 164, 54–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Zhao, J., Chen, S., & Zuo, R. (2017). Identification and mapping of lithogeochemical signatures using staged factor analysis and fractal/multifractal models. Geochemistry: Exploration, Environment, Analysis. doi: 10.1144/geochem2016-013.Google Scholar
  80. Zhou, L., Pan, S., Wang, J., & Vasilakos, A. S. (2017). Machine learning on big data: Opportunities and challenges. Neurocomputing, 237, 350–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Zuo, R. (2011). Decomposing of mixed pattern of arsenic using fractal model in Gangdese belt, Tibet, China. Applied Geochemistry, 26, S271–S273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Zuo, R. (2014). Identification of geochemical anomalies associated with mineralization in the Fanshan district, Fujian, China. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 139, 170–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Zuo, R., & Carranza, E. J. M. (2011). Support vector machine: a tool for mapping mineral prospectivity. Computers & Geosciences, 37, 1967–1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Zuo, R., Carranza, E. J. M., & Wang, J. (2016). Spatial analysis and visualization of exploration geochemical data. Earth-Science Reviews, 158, 9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Zuo, R., Cheng, Q., Agterberg, F. P., & Xia, Q. (2009). Application of singularity mapping technique to identification local anomalies using stream sediment geochemical data, a case study from Gangdese, Tibet, Western China. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 101, 225–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Zuo, R., & Wang, J. (2016). Fractal/multifractal modeling of geochemical data: A review. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 164, 33–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Zuo, R., Wang, J., Chen, G., & Yang, M. (2015). Identification of weak anomalies: A multifractal perspective. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 148, 12–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Zuo, R., Xia, Q., & Wang, H. (2013a). Compositional data analysis in the study of integrated geochemical anomalies associated with mineralization. Applied Geochemistry, 28, 202–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Zuo, R., Xia, Q., & Zhang, D. (2013b). A comparison study of the C–A and S–A models with singularity analysis to identify geochemical anomalies in covered areas. Applied Geochemistry, 33, 165–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Mathematical Geosciences 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Geological Processes and Mineral ResourcesChina University of GeosciencesWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations