Workflow-Induced Uncertainty in Data-Driven Mineral Prospectivity Mapping

IF 4.8 2区 地球科学 Q1 GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
{"title":"Workflow-Induced Uncertainty in Data-Driven Mineral Prospectivity Mapping","authors":"","doi":"10.1007/s11053-024-10322-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Abstract</h3> <p>The primary goal of mineral prospectivity mapping (MPM) is to narrow the search for mineral resources by producing spatially selective maps. However, in the data-driven domain, MPM products vary depending on the workflow implemented. Although the data science framework is popular to guide the implementation of data-driven MPM tasks, and is intended to create objective and replicable workflows, this does not necessarily mean that maps derived from data science workflows are optimal in a spatial sense. In this study, we explore interactions between key components of a geodata science-based MPM workflow on the geospatial outcome, within the modeling stage by modulating: (1) feature space dimensionality, (2) the choice of machine learning algorithms, and (3) performance metrics that guide hyperparameter tuning. We specifically relate these variations in the data science workflow to the spatial selectivity of resulting maps using uncertainty propagation. Results demonstrate that typical geodata science-based MPM workflows contain substantial local minima, as it is highly probable for an arbitrary combination of workflow choices to produce highly discriminating models. In addition, variable domain metrics, which are key to guide the iterative implementation of the data science framework, exhibit inconsistent relationships with spatial selectivity. We refer to this class of uncertainty as workflow-induced uncertainty. Consequently, we propose that the canonical concept of scientific consensus from the greater experimental science framework should be adhered to, in order to quantify and mitigate against workflow-induced uncertainty as part of data-driven experimentation. Scientific consensus stipulates that the degree of consensus of experimental outcomes is the determinant in the reliability of findings. Indeed, we demonstrate that consensus through purposeful modulations of components of a data-driven MPM workflow is an effective method to understand and quantify workflow-induced uncertainty on MPM products. In other words, enlarging the search space for workflow design and experimenting with workflow components can result in more meaningful reductions in the physical search space for mineral resources.</p>","PeriodicalId":54284,"journal":{"name":"Natural Resources Research","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Natural Resources Research","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11053-024-10322-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The primary goal of mineral prospectivity mapping (MPM) is to narrow the search for mineral resources by producing spatially selective maps. However, in the data-driven domain, MPM products vary depending on the workflow implemented. Although the data science framework is popular to guide the implementation of data-driven MPM tasks, and is intended to create objective and replicable workflows, this does not necessarily mean that maps derived from data science workflows are optimal in a spatial sense. In this study, we explore interactions between key components of a geodata science-based MPM workflow on the geospatial outcome, within the modeling stage by modulating: (1) feature space dimensionality, (2) the choice of machine learning algorithms, and (3) performance metrics that guide hyperparameter tuning. We specifically relate these variations in the data science workflow to the spatial selectivity of resulting maps using uncertainty propagation. Results demonstrate that typical geodata science-based MPM workflows contain substantial local minima, as it is highly probable for an arbitrary combination of workflow choices to produce highly discriminating models. In addition, variable domain metrics, which are key to guide the iterative implementation of the data science framework, exhibit inconsistent relationships with spatial selectivity. We refer to this class of uncertainty as workflow-induced uncertainty. Consequently, we propose that the canonical concept of scientific consensus from the greater experimental science framework should be adhered to, in order to quantify and mitigate against workflow-induced uncertainty as part of data-driven experimentation. Scientific consensus stipulates that the degree of consensus of experimental outcomes is the determinant in the reliability of findings. Indeed, we demonstrate that consensus through purposeful modulations of components of a data-driven MPM workflow is an effective method to understand and quantify workflow-induced uncertainty on MPM products. In other words, enlarging the search space for workflow design and experimenting with workflow components can result in more meaningful reductions in the physical search space for mineral resources.

数据驱动的矿产远景测绘中工作流程引发的不确定性
摘要 矿产远景测绘(MPM)的主要目标是通过制作空间选择性地图来缩小矿产资源的搜索范围。然而,在数据驱动领域,MPM 产品因实施的工作流程不同而各异。虽然数据科学框架在指导数据驱动型 MPM 任务的实施方面很受欢迎,其目的是创建客观、可复制的工作流程,但这并不一定意味着数据科学工作流程所生成的地图在空间意义上是最优的。在本研究中,我们探索了基于地理数据科学的 MPM 工作流程的关键组成部分之间在地理空间结果上的相互作用,在建模阶段通过调节:(1)特征空间维度;(2)机器学习算法的选择;(3)指导超参数调整的性能指标。我们利用不确定性传播将数据科学工作流程中的这些变化与所绘制地图的空间选择性具体联系起来。结果表明,典型的基于地理数据科学的 MPM 工作流程包含大量局部最小值,因为任意组合的工作流程选择极有可能产生高辨别度的模型。此外,指导数据科学框架迭代实施的关键变量域指标与空间选择性的关系也不一致。我们将这类不确定性称为工作流引起的不确定性。因此,我们建议,在数据驱动的实验过程中,应遵循大实验科学框架中科学共识的经典概念,以量化和减轻工作流程诱导的不确定性。科学共识规定,实验结果的共识程度是实验结果可靠性的决定因素。事实上,我们证明,通过有目的地调节数据驱动的多指标类集测量工作流程的各个组成部分来达成共识,是了解和量化多指标类集测量产品的工作流程引起的不确定性的有效方法。换句话说,扩大工作流程设计的搜索空间并对工作流程组件进行实验,可以更有意义地缩小矿产资源的物理搜索空间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Natural Resources Research
Natural Resources Research Environmental Science-General Environmental Science
CiteScore
11.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
151
期刊介绍: This journal publishes quantitative studies of natural (mainly but not limited to mineral) resources exploration, evaluation and exploitation, including environmental and risk-related aspects. Typical articles use geoscientific data or analyses to assess, test, or compare resource-related aspects. NRR covers a wide variety of resources including minerals, coal, hydrocarbon, geothermal, water, and vegetation. Case studies are welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信