A Comparative Analysis of Favorability Mappings1

P1: IAZ/JLS
Natural Resources Research (NRR)
pp1067-nrr-477452
December 11, 2003
18:23
Style file version Nov. 07, 2000
C 2003)
Natural Resources Research, Vol. 12, No. 4, December 2003 (
A Comparative Analysis of Favorability Mappings by

Weights of Evidence, Probabilistic Neural Networks,
Discriminant Analysis, and Logistic Regression
DeVerle Harris,1 Lukas Zurcher,1,4 Michael Stanley,2 Josef Marlow,2 and Guocheng Pan3
Received 11 November 2002; accepted 27 February 2003
This study compares the performance of favorability mappings by weights of evidence (WOE),
probabilistic neural networks (PNN), logistic regression (LR), and discriminant analysis (DA).
Comparisons are made by an objective measure of performance that is based on statistical
decision theory. The study further emphasizes out-of-sample inference, and quantifies the
extent to which outcome is influenced by optimum variable discretization with classification
and regression trees (CARTS).
Favorability mapping methodologies are evaluated systematically across three case studies
with contrasting scale and geologic information:
Case Study
Carlin
sediment-hosted
gold
deposit
small (0.01 km2 )
high
complex
moderate
modest
Scale
Cell size
Information level
Geovariables
Variable interdependency
Asymmetry in frequency of
barren and mineralized cells
Alamos
intrusion-related
copper
district
medium (1 km2 )
moderate
simple
low
considerable
Nevada
intrusion-related
copper
regional
large (7 km2 )
low
simple
high
severe
Estimated favorabilities for all cells then are represented by computed percent correct
classification, and expected loss of optimum decision.
The deposit-scale Carlin study reveals that the performances of the various methods from
lowest to highest expected decision loss are: PNN, nonparametric DA, binary PNN (WOE
variables), LR, and WOE. Moreover, the study indicates that approximately 40% of the
increase in expected decision loss using WOE instead of PNN is the result of information loss
from variable discretization. The remaining increases in losses using WOE are the result of its
lesser inferential power than PNN.
The district-scale Alamos study shows that the lowest expected decision loss is not by
PNN, but by canonical DA. CARTS discretization improves greatly the performance of WOE.
However, PNN and DA perform better than WOE.
Unlike findings from the Alamos and Carlin studies, results from the regional-scale Nevada
study indicate that decision losses by LR and DA are lower than those by WOE or PNN.
Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson,

Arizona, USA.
2 Resource Science, Inc., Tucson, Arizona, USA.
3 GeoSight, Inc., Highlands Ranch, Colorado, USA.
To whom correspondence should be addressed: Department of

Geosciences, 1040 E. Fourth Street, Tucson, Arizona 85721,
phone: (520) 626-4962, Fax: (520) 621-2672; e-mail: lzurcher@
geo.arizona.edu.
241
C 2003 International Association for Mathematical Geology
1520-7439/03/1200-0241/1
P1: IAZ/JLS
pp1067-nrr-477452
December 11, 2003
18:23
242
Harris, Zurcher, Stanley, Marlow, and Pan

Moreover, decision losses by CARTS-based canonical DA are noticeably the lowest of all,
including those by LR and DA using the original variables.
KEY WORDS: Decision theory; mineral potential prediction; method performance.
INTRODUCTION
Perspective for this Study
Favorability Mapping Defined
The starting point for this study is the recognition

that the integration of GIS layers by WOE is the creation of a new layer showing the spatial distribution of
a Bayesian probability for mineralization. Thus, although WOE usually is described in intuitive terms of
evidence for and evidence against, it is, nevertheless,
simply a user friendly way of estimating a Bayesian
probability, which is the probability for deposit occurrence, given the geology: P(Deposit Occurrence/
Geology). This view of WOE prompts examination of
alternative methodologies that accomplish the same
objective: the mapping of geological favorability for
mineralization. Hereafter, the expression geological
favorability for mineralization is shortened to favorability. Accordingly, this study compares favorability
mappings by selected mathematical methods, all of
which yield a Bayesian probability either directly or
indirectly:
The favorability mapping paradigm consists of

(1) training a method on the relationship of geovariables (lithology, structure, geophysics, geochemistry,
etc.) to mineral occurrence on an explored area, (2)
employing the trained method to infer favorability
of unexplored cells (subdivisions of an unexplored
area) from their geovariables, and (3) selecting
the most favorable unexplored cells for follow-on
exploration.
Data Integration by Weights of Evidence:

A Favorability Mapping
Some geologists use Weights of Evidence (WOE)
to generate a numerical index of mineral occurrence
favorability from data on geovariables (Agterberg
and others, 1993; Mihalasky and Bonham-Carter,
2001; Bonham-Carter and others, 1998). Among the
reasons for this use of WOE is the congruence of two
developments: (1) the increased use of Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) to store, retrieve, process, display, and analyze geological information
(Bonham-Carter, 1994), and (2) the perception of
WOE as a data integration tool. The phrase data integration refers to the combining of several GIS layers
into a single layer that depicts the spatial distribution
of a constructed index of a specific geological feature
or state. When that index reflects geological favorability for the occurrence of a mineral deposit, the
GIS layer is referred to as a favorability map. The
availability of an ARCVIEWTM plug in for WOE
(Kemp, Bonham-Carter, and Raines, 1999) enhances
the appeal of WOE for data integration, as also does
the capability of WOE to accommodate an uneven
spatial distribution of information, that is some cells
for which the states of one or more geological conditions are unknownsee Singer and Kouda (1999)
for a more extensive discussion of these and other
factors.
Weights of Evidence (WOE)

Probabilistic Neural Networks (PNN)
Logistic Regression (LR)
Discriminant Analysis (DA)
Relevant Previous Work

Some of the research reported in this paper
is a follow-on of the investigation by Harris and
Pan (1999) of favorability mapping for Carlin gold.
In order of decreasing classification accuracy, the
tested methods ranked as follows: Probabilistic Neural Networks (PNN), Nonparametric Discriminant
Analysis (DA), Parametric (Fisher) Discriminant
Analysis, and Logistic Regression (LR). Singer and
Kouda (1999) compare PNN and WOE on the Chisel
Lake-Anderson Lake area, Manitoba, Canada, which
had been analyzed previously by Wright and
Bonham-Carter (1996). They determined that when
one half of the data are used for training and the
other half for validation, PNN had a lower error rate
than WOE. They also concluded that PNN, similar
to LR, avoids some of the problems caused by interdependent (correlated) variables in WOE: The study
P1: IAZ/JLS
pp1067-nrr-477452
December 11, 2003
18:23
A Comparative Analysis of Favorability Mappings

reported in this paper is an extension of the works
of Harris and Pan (1999) and of Singer and Kouda
(1999) in that it compares favorability mapping by
WOE with mappings by PNN and multivariate statistical methods. This study differs from other studies in
three ways: (1) the measure by which performances of
the methods are compared, (2) the method by which
variables are discretized to binary form, and (3) the
selection of a subset of variables to be used by all
favorability mapping models by an external methodology, that is, a methodology other than those being
compared. Explanations of these procedures are provided in subsequent sections.
CONCEPTS AND ANALYTICAL STRUCTURE

FOR JUDGING PERFORMANCE
The Use of Case Studies
and Out-of-Sample Inference
This investigation employs case studies instead of
simulation studies as a method for comparing favorability mapping methodologies. Moreover, the study
emphasizes out-of-sample inference, not just the fit of
a model to its training data. As used here, the phrase
out-of-sample inference refers to using an estimated
(trained) model to infer the favorability of areas that
were not used to estimate model parameters. Such
an approach is consistent with a mineral exploration
perspective, as it imitates the training of a model on
a well-explored area for use on unexplored areas to
select potentially mineralized cells. However, in this
study, the areas selected for out-of-sample inference
were well-explored, thereby providing a method for
judging relative performances of the different models; such areas are referred to as validation areas
(cells).
The study design, although well motivated,
presents a number of challenging problems. Chief
among them is the ambiguity that arises from incomplete exploration in training or validation areas of the
case studies. A second difficulty arises from the interdependency of much natural geological information that is converted to geovariables. Interdependency of geovariables affects model estimation and
performance. A third difficulty arises from the limitation of WOE to binary or ternary variables. A fourth
difficulty is the judging of performance by comparing model outputs, which are probabilities, with actual occurrences, which are realizations of a stochastic
process.
243
Features of the Case Studies
The three case studies represent three different scales of exploration: regional (Nevada), mining district (Alamos), and individual mineral deposit
(Carlin). Accordingly, exploration completeness, cell
size, and specificity of geovariables differ greatly
across these three scales of exploration:
Carlin gold mineralization: High-level information,
small cell size (10,000 m2 , or 0.01 km2 ), small geographic area with relatively homogeneous geology, a single deposit type, complete exploration,
complex geovariables, low to moderate variable
interdependency, moderate asymmetry in numbers
of barren and mineralized cells.
Alamos District intrusion-related mineralization:
Moderate-level information, cell size of 1 km2 , incomplete exploration, simple geovariables, low interdependency of variables, multiple deposit types,
considerable asymmetry in number of mineralized
and barren cells.
Nevada (north-central) intrusion-related mineralization: Low-level information, relatively large cell
size (7 km2 , compared with 1 km2 for Alamos
and 0.01 km2 for Carlin), incomplete exploration,
simple geovariables, high geovariable interdependency, low homogeneity of geology, multiple deposit types, and severe asymmetry in numbers of
mineralized and barren cells.
Each of these case studies followed the same
paradigm:
Divide the cells of the case study randomly into
two subsets: Training set and validation set;
train the method (estimate model parameters)
on the training set only;
use the trained model to estimate favorability
for all cells (training cells + validation cells);
compute the percent correct classification for
all cells; and
compute expected decision loss of optimum
decision.
The number of randomly selected cells in the training set was constrained by the capacity of the PNN
software. Moreover, the fraction of those randomly
selected cells that were mineralized was determined
totally by the random sampling process.
It is important to emphasize that only one of these
case studies, Carlin Gold, satisfies the requirement for
unqualified comparison: All cells in the training and
validation areas have been drill-tested and determined
P1: IAZ/JLS
pp1067-nrr-477452
December 11, 2003
18:23
244
to be either barren or mineralized. Thus, although two
additional case studies are employed to examine performances on different scales and complexity of geology and mineralization, only the Carlin study permits
unqualified judgment.
Misclassified Cells: A Difficult Problem
The most problematic of the factors affecting performance is the misclassification of mineralized cells
in the training set as barren, reflecting the fact that
such cells have deposits, but they have not yet been
discovered. The presence of these misclassified cells
in the training set presents models with contradictory
or ambiguous information about geology and mineral occurrence. To the extent that the geological variables do capture important differences in the geology
of mineralized and barren cells, misclassification decreases the capability of the models to identify these
differences and utilize them in classification of unknown cells. The presence of misclassified cells in the
barren group causes the trained models to not fit their
training data as well as they would otherwise, and their
performances on the validation set are similarly confounded. Although misclassification of training cells
diminishes the performance of all methods, its effect
may not be equal across methods.
Measuring Performance
Although all investigated methods were selected
because they provide a Bayesian probability for mineralization, output is treated only as a scaled [0,1]
index. Accordingly, a methods performance is described by the percentage of mineralized cells or barren cells correctly classified when a specific index
value is used as the classification criterion (see Fig. 1).
Figure 1. Illustration of classification of mineralized and barren

cells.

Probability bias is not important in this measure of
performance, as the Bayesian probability is treated
only as a decision index. What is important is how
accurately the index discriminates mineralized from
barren cells at selected cutoff probabilities (decision
criteria). Moreover, as incorrect exploration decisions have economic consequences, each methodology is described by expected loss when its decision
index is used optimally to select cells for further exploration. The mechanics of performance valuation
are explained further and illustrated in a subsequent
section entitled A Decision-Theory Approach to
Valuation.
Variable Redundancy, Discretization, and CARTS

Inasmuch as most geological data sets are redundant to some degree, comparison of model performances requires a ground-rule on model estimation
and variable selection. The rule adopted in this study
is that all models are required to use the same variables.
It is acknowledged that this rule obviates the selection
of variables that optimize each models performance
individually, as such selections could differ across the
methods. However, invoking this ground-rule permits
the attribution of performances to the model, and not
to the differences in geological information that arise
from different sets of variables. When a data set has
great redundancy, a second analysis is made on a subset of relatively independent variables selected by an
external method, CARTS (Classification and Regression Trees), because the performance of each model
may be affected differently by data redundancy. Then,
all models are retrained and evaluated on the same reduced set of variables. CARTS (Steinberg and Colla,
1995; Breiman and others, 1984) is a software that
grows classification trees by binary recursive partitioning of the variables.
The selection of an external methodology to reduce the number of variables was made to remove
the advantage that one method would gain over another if its reduced set were employed by all methods.
The choice of CARTS as that external methodology is
based upon the capability it provides for achieving a
second objective: Enhanced discretization of continuous geovariables. Discretization is required by WOE,
as it is the only tested methodology that requires binary or ternary variables. Although a simple presence/absence is the most frequently used discretization, it may not be the best. In order to present WOE
in its best light, CARTS is used on two of the case
P1: IAZ/JLS
pp1067-nrr-477452
December 11, 2003
18:23
245
studies not only to reduce the number of variables

but also to identify discretizations that enhance the
information content of the selected variables.
correct classification for a range of cutoff probabilities for mineralization, as described in the following
section.
A DECISION-THEORY APPROACH
TO PERFORMANCE VALUATION
Classification Performance on the Validation Set
The Need for an Objective Performance Measure

Two methods may differ so greatly by percent of
cells correctly classified that judgment about relative
performance of the two methods can be made visually. Apart from such polar cases, however, judging
relative performance solely by visual inspection of
graphs or tables may be difficult. One method may
classify mineralized cells well but not the barren cells;
a second method may classify barren cells well but not
mineralized cells; and a third method may classify both
only moderately well. Judgment about relative performance may require consideration of additional information as well as an objective measure. For mineral
exploration decisions, the most important additional
information is the economic consequences of incorrect classifications of barren and mineralized cells, for
these consequences may differ. For example, in exploration for porphyry copper, the economic loss of
incorrectly rejecting a mineralized cell may be considerably greater than the loss from incorrectly retaining a cell that is barren. When losses are asymmetric, the measure of relative performance by which
methods are compared should accommodate that
asymmetry.
The performance measure selected for this study
is the expected loss of optimum decision when the
conditional losses of acceptance and rejection are normalized on acceptance loss. Rejection loss is defined
to be the opportunity lost when a mineralized cell is
incorrectly rejected, indicating that it is judged to be
barren. Acceptance loss is the cost of additional exploration required to determine that a cell retained
as mineralized is actually barren. Suppose, for example, that rejection and acceptance dollar losses were
$1,000,000 and $50,000, respectively; then standardized rejection and acceptance losses would be 20 and
1, respectively. Thus, the total expected loss of optimum decision is a weighted sum of the two normalized losses, with the weights being the expected
number of validation cells incorrectly rejected and accepted, respectively. Clearly, the expected loss of optimum decision can be computed only if performance
of a methodology has been described by percent
Correct classification, which indicates correctly

retaining mineralized cells and correctly rejecting barren cells, varies with the cutoff probability used for
classification. Thus, for a cutoff probability, p, the percent of mineralized cells having a probability of at
least p is computed. Similarly, the percent of barren
cells having a probability less than p is computed. By
repeating this operation for several cutoff probabilities, a graph can be constructed that depicts the performance of a methodology as an exploration decision
tool (see Fig. 1). The following section describes how
percent correct classification and conditional losses of
misclassifications are combined to give the expected
loss of optimum decision, which is the performance
measure used in this study.
Expected Loss of Optimum Decision
Suppose that for an area containing NM mineralized cells and NB barren cells, percent correct classification has been determined for each at several cutoff
probabilities ranging from 0 to 1. Let m(p) be the percent of NM mineralized cells that are correctly classified given cutoff probability for mineralization, p, and
b(p) the percent of the NB barren cells that are correctly classified. Define L as the ratio of unit rejection
loss to unit acceptance loss. Then, the expected decision loss, denoted as E(p; L), is a function of p, given
the normalized rejection loss for a given L (ratio of
rejection loss to acceptance loss):
E(p; L) = NM{[100 m(p)]/100}L
+ NB{[100 b(p)]/100}{1}
(1)
Consider the first part of Equation (1). The term

[100 m(p)]/100 describes the fraction of the NM
mineralized cells incorrectly classified as barren. Thus,
the expression NM{[100 m(p)]/100}L is the magnitude of opportunity loss as a result of misclassification of mineralized cells as barren, given a cutoff
probability (decision criterion) p. The second part of
Equation (1) describes loss resulting from misclassification of barren cells as mineralized using decision criterion p. The sum of the two parts is the expected decision loss for decision criterion p. Table 1
P1: IAZ/JLS
pp1067-nrr-477452
December 11, 2003
18:23
246

Table 1. Expected Decision Loss
Fraction classified correctly
Rejection loss as a multiple of acceptance loss (L)
Cutoff probability for

mineralization (p)
Mineralized
Barren
10
25
50
100
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1
0.9448
0.9428
0.9338
0.9196
0.893
0.8596
0.7917
0.6858
0.4977
0.2635
0
0.8716
0.8944
0.9116
0.9297
0.9447
0.9597
0.9754
0.9884
0.9973
1
14612.0
1973.9
1644.3
1408.9
1169.6
997.5
837.5
728.4
725.9
929.0
1304.3
14612.0
2853.8
2556.0
2464.1
2451.1
2703.0
3075.3
4048.4
5734.0
8935.2
13043.4
14612.0
4320.2
4075.6
4222.7
4586.9
5545.5
6805.1
9581.9
14080.7
22278.8
32608.5
14612.0
6764.1
6608.1
7153.7
8146.6
10282.9
13021.3
18804.4
27991.9
44518.1
65217.1
14612.0
11652.1
11673.1
13015.7
15266.1
19757.7
25453.7
37249.4
55814.3
88996.8
130434.2
0.8
725.9
0.4
2451.1
0.2
4075.6
0.2
6608.1
0.1
11652.1
Optimum Cutoff Probability

Minimum Expected Loss [C(L)]
demonstrates the computation of expected decision

loss. Let NM = 1771 and NB = 14612, L = 1 and p =
0.8. L = 1 implies that rejection and acceptance losses
are equal. Inspection of Table 1 shows that for p = 0.8,
m(0.8)/100 = 0.6858 and b(0.8)/100 = 0.9884, which
are the decimal fractions of mineralized and barren
cells, respectively, that are classified correctly when
p = 0.8 is used as the decision criterion. Substituting
appropriately in the equation for expected decision
loss, we have:
E(0.8; 1) = 1771(1 0.6858)(1)
+ 14612(1 0.9884)(1) = 725.9
This expected loss (725.9) is shown in the fourth column on the row for p = 0.8. Similarly, calculated values
for all other cutoff probabilities at L = 1 also are
shown in the fourth column. Note that of these losses,
that for p = 0.8 is the smallest. Thus, if the relevant
ratio of rejection loss to acceptance loss is 1, the optimum decision rule is to retain all cells with probabilities of at least 0.8 and reject all cells with probabilities smaller than 0.8. Changing L and performing
these same calculations gives the decision losses for
values of L of 10, 25, 50 and 100, as shown in the other
columns of Table 1. The bottom 2 rows of this table
show the optimum decision rule for each value of L
and associated expected losses C(L):
Notice that when L = 50, the optimum decision

criterion is p = 0.2, with an expected loss of 6608.1.
Thus, when rejection loss is 50 times the acceptance
loss, our expected losses are minimized by lowering
the cutoff probability to 0.2 so as to retain more of the
mineralized cells, even though doing so increases the
cost of incorrectly retaining more barren cells. Naturally, the larger L is, the smaller the optimum cutoff
probability, as shown in Figure 3.
Suppressing intermediate computations, each
favorability mapping method will be described by
the graph of C(L) plotted against L. Thus, for a given
area and relevant L, the preferred methodology for
favorability mapping will have the smallest C(L).
One methodology may have lower values of C(L)
for small values of L, whereas C(L) for another
methodology may be lower for high values of L, or
vice-a-versa. A methodology is dominant when it has
C(L) = Minp {E(p : L)}

= Expected loss of optimum decision. (2)
Figure 2 shows the plot of C(L) against L for this
illustrative example.
Figure 2. Illustration of Decision Loss relationship.
P1: IAZ/JLS
pp1067-nrr-477452
December 11, 2003
18:23
247
by measurements on eight geological variables:
tm
trend
vmag
resis
tc
au
as
hg
Figure 3. Effect of Rejection Loss multiple on optimum cutoff

probability.
the smallest C(L) over the entire range of relevant L

values.
THE CARLIN STUDY

Perspective
The Carlin sediment-hosted gold deposit is
located at 116.32 and 40.91 in northcentral
Nevada. This case study is an important one because
exploration is considered to be complete to some reasonable depth: all cells have been tested for mineralization by the drill. Given the small cell size (100 m
by 100 m) and Carlin-type mineralization, the likelihood of misclassifying a mineralized cell as barren is
considered to be negligible. The Carlin case study is
special for reasons other than exploration completeness. Of the three case studies, Carlin has the smallest
number of geovariables (8), presenting less data redundancy. Moreover, the eight geovariables are the
products of prior data processing and enhancement,
making them rich in information related to Carlin gold
occurrence. A final benefit of using Carlin as a case
study is that it already had been intensely investigated
in the comparison of PNN with multivariate statistical
methods for favorability mapping (Harris and Pan,
1999; Pan and Harris, 2000). The present study extends that investigation to include WOE and binary
PNN with CARTS discretization.
Generation of Variables
Each of the cells is described by the presence/absence of gold, as confirmed by drilling, and
TM linear score
regional structural trend score
vertical magnetic component
resistivity ratio
total radiometric count
soil Au in ppb
soil As in ppm
soil Hg in ppb
Tm is a quantified structural score from a set of lineaments interpreted from Thematic Mapping images.
The quantification is based upon a set of structural
measurements generated from a moving window. Details of this quantification procedure are given in Pan
(1989). Trend is a quantified structural score based
upon regional structures interpreted by geologists.
The quantification procedure is the same as for tm.
Vmag is the first vertical derivative of the total magnetic field. Resis is the ratio of the resistivity value at
900 Hz frequency to the resistivity value at 7200 Hz
frequency. Tc is the total count of K, Th, and U from an
airborne radiometric survey. Au, as, and hg are interpolated, nontransformed, values of gold, arsenic, and
mercury, respectively, from a soil sample geochemical
survey.
Training and Validation Sets

The Carlin case study consists of 16,383 cells each
of 10,000 m2 area (100 m by 100 m), all of which have
been drill-tested for mineralization. In order to test
the predictive power of the models, cells were divided
randomly into two sets: training and validation. After
the models were trained (estimated) on the training
set, they were used to estimate probability for mineralization for the validation cells as well as the training
cells.
Random sampling of the 16,383 cells for 3,277
training cells created the training set, which constitutes about 20% of all cells. Of the 3,277 training cells,
321 are mineralized, the remaining 2,956 are barren.
After training, the model was used to estimate probability for mineralization for all 16,383 cells, of which
13,106 had not been used in training. Of the 16,383
cells, 1,771 are mineralized; the remaining 14,612 are
known to be barren. Thus, the favorability mapping
models are judged by how well they perform on the
entire set (16,383) of cells, 80% of which were not
used in training of the models.
P1: IAZ/JLS
pp1067-nrr-477452
December 11, 2003
18:23
248
Discretization of Variables and Analysis by WOE

The first hurdle to performing a WOE analysis
is the discretization of the original variables to binary variables. The procedure employed in the Carlin
study examined each variable separately by splitting
its range of values into several subclasses and identifying those having the greatest relative frequency
of mineralization. That produced the following discretization:
trend
1 for presence of trend,
vmag
resis
tc
au
1 for 1.8 < vmag <3.4,

1 for resis > 2.3,
1 for tc> 11.755,
1 for 20 < au < 30 or
au > 100,
1 for as > 19,
1 for 80 < hg < 95 or
hg > 100,
as
hg
1 for absence
of trend
1 otherwise
1 otherwise
1 otherwise
1 otherwise
1 otherwise
1 otherwise
Tm was dropped, as there were no preferred subdivisions. Dropping of tm probably had little effect on
relative performance of WOE, as a subsequent analysis by CARTS (Classification And Regression Trees)
revealed that tm was next to last in importance in the
building of a classification tree.
WOE analysis of the 3,277 training cells revealed
that the most important variables are the geochemical
scores, as they have the highest contrasts:
trend
vmag
resis
tc
au
as
hg
0.174
0.762
0.594
0.771
1.665
1.116
2.188
The WOE model based upon all 7 variables was

applied to all 16,383 cells. The results of this analysis
are shown in Figure 4.
For comparison purposes, the classification performance of PNN is shown in Figure 5. Figures 4 and
5 reveal a performance by PNN that surpasses considerably that of WOE. For all cutoff probabilities
greater than 0, PNN correctly classifies larger percentages of both mineralized and barren cells than
does WOE. Moreover, favorability mapping by WOE
is inferior to the mappings by LR and DA reported
by Harris and Pan (1999), who also determined favorability mappings by LR and DA to be inferior to
PNN.
Figure 4. Classification of all Carlin Gold cells by WOE.
An important and intriguing question is: How

much of the superior performance by PNN over WOE
is the result of the loss of information in discretizing
the variables in order to use WOE? In an attempt to
explore that question, PNN was trained on the same
binary variables used in the WOE analysis. The results
of applying that model to the validation set are shown
in Figure 6.
Comparison of Figures 5 and 6 reveals a classification performance by the binary PNNusing the
WOE binary variablesthat is noticeably inferior to
that of the PNN that used the original variables. The
binary PNN classifies the mineralized cells well, but it
does not do nearly as well on the barren cells as does
the PNN using the original variables.
A strict comparison of the binary PNN with
WOE requires consideration of the conditional losses
of incorrect rejection of mineralized and incorrect acceptance of barren cells. Figure 7 depicts expected
decision losses for selected normalized rejection loss
multiples from 1 to 100, given optimum decision rules,
Figure 5. Classification of all Carlin Gold cells by PNN using

continuous variables.
P1: IAZ/JLS
pp1067-nrr-477452
December 11, 2003
18:23
249
decision loss by the binary PNN is lower than that for
LR (logistic regression) using the original variables.
Generally, for the Carlin case study, Figure 7 shows
that the favorability mapping methods, ranked from
lowest to highest expected decision loss are:
Figure 6. Classification of all Carlin Gold cells by PNN using binary

variables.
that is cutoff probabilities for each method. As shown

in this figure, WOE has the highest decision losses by
a considerable margin.
Of particular interest is the graph of expected
decision loss for the binary PNN, because that model
used the same binary variables used by WOE. Especially noteworthy are the considerably lower expected
decision losses for the binary PNN than for WOE.
Comparison of expected decision losses of PNN on
the original variables, PNN on the binary WOE variables, and WOE strongly suggest that: Approximately
40% of the increase in expected decision loss using
WOE instead of PNN is the result of information loss
from discretizing the geovariables, given rejection loss
multiples of 20 or less. That percentage increases to
about 60% as rejection losses multiples increase to 100.
The remaining increases (60% to 40%) in losses for
each rejection loss multiple are because of the greater
inferential power of PNN over WOE.
Inspection of Figure 7 further reveals that for
most of the range of rejection loss multiples, expected
Figure 7. Comparison of Decision Loss for Carlin by logistic

regression, nonparametric discriminant analysis, WOE, and PNN.
Probabilistic Neural Networks (PNN)

Nonparametric Discriminant Analysis (DA)
Binary PNN (WOE variables)
Logistic Regression (LR)
Weights of Evidence (WOE)
THE ALAMOS STUDY

Perspective
The Alamos district is located about 108.93
and 27.05 in southern Sonora, Mexico. The Alamos
case study differs from Carlin in ways that have the
potential to affect favorability mapping. The most important of these is incomplete exploration, meaning
that some cells that are currently classified as barren
may have undiscovered mineral deposits. Alamos differs from Carlin in other ways, besides incomplete
exploration: (1) larger cell size (1 km2 compared with
0.01 km2 ), (2) simpler geovariables, (3) a narrower
spectrum of geoinformation, (4) multiple Cu deposit
types (skarn, porphyry, and polymetallic veins), and
(5) less information enhancement.
The study area contains thirty seven prospects.
Two, or possibly three prospects, are related to a porphyry stock, seven are associated with skarn, and the
rest are polymetallic vein systems.
From old to young, explanatory variables include metasediments (TJ seds), intermediate volcanics (Kande), limestone (Kls), batholith (KTgd),
felsic volcanics (Trhy), bimodal volcanics (Tvolcs),
conglomerate (Tbaucarit), alluvium (Qal), and fractures (Frac). The variables were quantified by their
aerial extent within a given unit area (1 km2 ) cell,
based on a digitized version of the map by VazquezPerez (1975). Because of their small outcrop proportion, porphyry intrusions were left out. Fractures were
quantified based on selected influence buffers. In the
initial analysis, a buffer of 300 meters was used to
quantify fractures (Frac300), as that buffer size maximized WOEs contrast. A buffer of 500 meters was
P1: IAZ/JLS
pp1067-nrr-477452
December 11, 2003
18:23
250
Initial Analysis. The initial analysis for Alamos

used all 9 variables. Application of WOE required
that all continuous variables be discretized to binary
variables. For the initial analysis, discretization was
a simple presence or absence. Figure 8 depicts the
expected decision loss for the various methods. The
figure shows decision loss patterns similar to those of
the Carlin study in that losses by WOE are greater
than losses by PNN or DA.
Of course, some of the WOE loss could be the
result of loss of information by the simple presence/absence discretization. To investigate the magnitude of that loss, a second PNN was performed on the
same binary variables used by WOE. As in the Carlin
case, expected decision loss by the Binary PNN is considerably less than it is for WOE, which demonstrates
the greater inferential power of PNN. Unlike the
Carlin study, however, the lowest expected decision
loss is not by PNN, but by canonical discriminant analysis (DA), based upon separate group covariance ma-
trices. Interestingly, this DA achieves the lowest decision loss even though it is parametric, being based
upon the assumption that discriminant scores are normally distributed.
A Second AnalysisAn Investigation of Enhanced Discretization. The second analysis investigates the impact of (1) a more rigorous discretization than simple presence or absence, and (2) fewer
geovariables. The finding of the large decision loss by
WOE begs the question: How well would WOE perform when it is applied under conditions that enhance
its performance? Such conditions would include reduction of variables and a discretization scheme that
enhances the relationship between the resulting binary geovariables and mineral occurrence.
Although there are various methods for discretization (Pan and Harris, 2000), this study employed CARTS. The criterion used to rank candidate
splits was the heterogeneity of a tree node, which in
this study was described by the Gini coefficient. Analysis by CARTS determined the optimum tree to have
5 nodes, when prior probability is an average of relative frequency from the data and equal priors, and
when rejection loss is 3 times acceptance loss. Because a tree with 7 nodes had only a slightly higher
decision cost, it was selected to ensure that the favorability mapping methods were not overly constrained
by the methodology of CARTS, and to accommodate
differences in how the various methods employed the
geovariables. For a 7-node classification tree, the most
important variables were, in decreasing order, Kande,
KTgd, Trhy, TJseds, and Frac200. The cut points selected for discretization were early splits on the five
variables: Kande > 0.00478; KTgd > 0.0237; Trhy >
0.0796; Frac200 > 0.111; and TJseds > 0.158.
The new binary variables improved greatly the
performance by WOE. Figure 9 shows a great
Figure 8. Comparison of Decision Loss for Alamos by PNN, WOE,

and discriminant analysis.
Figure 9. Comparison of Decision Loss for Alamos by WOE:

original binary and CARTS binary variables.
assigned to each mineral occurrence to increase the

influence ratio between barren and mineralized cells.

The 1,939 cells of the Alamos area were sampled
randomly for a training set of 970 cells, of which 41
were mineralized. The remaining set of 969 cells constituted the validation set, of which 55 were mineralized. Then, the trained model was used to compute the
conditional probability for mineralization for each of
the 1,939 (training plus validation) cells.
Analyses
P1: IAZ/JLS
pp1067-nrr-477452
December 11, 2003
18:23
Figure 10. Comparison of Decision Loss for Alamos by PNN,

discriminant analysis, and WOE using CARTS binary variables.
reduction in decision loss when WOE is trained on

the same cells but with the new CARTS binary variables. Decision loss by WOE on the CARTS variables
is closer to that of PNN and DA on the original continuous variables than that of WOE on the original
binary variables. This seems to suggest great benefits from information enhancement by the CARTS
discretization and a concomitant decrease in interdependency of variables. The conditional independence
ratio computed by WOE for the training set is 0.93,
indicating an acceptable model in terms of variable
autocorrelation. However, for the entire data set (validation + training sets), the conditional independence
ratio is considerably lower, 0.45.
Interestingly, further analysis reveals that both
PNN and DA perform better than WOE when applied to the same CARTS binary variables. As shown
in Figure 10, decision losses by PNN and DA are approximately one half of that by WOE, with the loss
by PNN being slightly lower than that for DA. These
lower losses are attributed to the greater inferential
power of these methods over WOE. Again, the low
decision loss by DA is especially noteworthy in that
the CARTS binary variables depart greatly from normality.
251
that of Carlin. A consequence of the larger cell size is
decreased specificity of geovariables in terms of their
relationship to mineral occurrence. The larger number of geovariables (15) describe a broad spectrum
of information, for example magnetics, radiometrics,
and geochemistry, in addition to lithologies and structure. Everything else being equal, a large number of
geovariables commonly results in increased variable
interdependency.
Known mineralization in the Nevada study area
is not nearly as abundant as in the Carlin and Alamos
areas. For example, mineralized cells constitute only
about 1.4% of the cells in the Nevada study area. This
is a small percentage when compared with Carlin,
for which 10.8% are mineralized, and with Alamos,
for which about 5% are mineralized. Thus, as statistical populations, the two classes of cells (mineralized
and barren) are asymmetric in number. This asymmetry could represent lower mineralization rates or increased post-mineralization cover. As with Alamos,
mineralized cells in the Nevada study area include
several types of intrusion-related Cu deposits.
Conforming to the field descriptor Genlith of
the digital version of the geologic map of Nevada
(Turner, Bawiec, and Ambroziak, 1991), variables
were delineated based on lithology and age associations. They include:
Uptec
Lowtev
Lowtep
Mzvol
Mzplut
Lmzsed
Upzseq
THE NEVADA STUDY

Perspective
The regional-scale Nevada study area is bounded
by 118.25 , 41.75 and 114.50 , 38.75 in the central
and northeastern sector of the state. It is 103,908 km2
in size and consists of 14,844 cells, each 7 km2 . Of the
three case studies, the Nevada study cell size is by far
the largest, being 7 times that of Alamos and 700 times
Lpzcarb
Lpztrans
Lpzclast
Thrusts
Upper Tertiary sedimentary, volcanic

and unconsolidated materials
Lower Tertiary volcanic units
Lower Tertiary plutonic units
Mesozoic volcanic units
Mesozoic plutonic units
Lower Mesozoic foreland and coastal
sedimentary units
Upper Paleozoic sequences generalized
from: Antler sequence,
Carbonate-detrital belt,
Foreland/Shelf Carbonate sequence,
and Siliceous and Volcanic assemblage
Lower Paleozoic carbonate assemblage
Lower Paleozoic transitional
assemblage
Lower Paleozoic siliclastic assemblage
Thrust fault influence buffers of 6 kms
based upon WOE contrast
maximization.
P1: IAZ/JLS
pp1067-nrr-477452
December 11, 2003
18:23
252
Radiometrics (Phillips, Duval, and
Ambroziak, 1993) generalized from
the frequency distribution to include
high (Eu 2) and low (Eu < 2) values
from an original cell size of 2.4 2.4
kms
Mag
Total magnetic intensity (Kucks, 1999a)
generalized from the frequency
distribution to include high (Gammas
0) and low (Gammas < 0) values
from an original cell size of
2.4 2.4 kms
Grav
Bouguer gravity (Kucks, 1999b)
generalized from the frequency
distribution to include high (Milligals
220) and low (Milligals < 220)
values from an original cell size of
4.8 4.8 kms
Geochem Principal components score generated
from analysis of 1553 NURE
(Grossman, 1998) base metal stream
sediment geochemical data. The
high-low contour map is based on the
frequency distribution of the
ln(Cu)-bearing factor.
Mineral deposit sites used for this analysis include 207 copper-bearing intrusion-related mines and
prospects extracted from MRDS (Frank, 1999) based
on the presence of Cu as a major commodity: replacement, skarn, disseminated, or porphyry copper.
Rad

The 14,844 cells were sampled randomly for a
training set of 1,929 cells, of which 31 were mineralized. The remaining 12,915 cells were withheld as a
validation set, of which 176 were mineralized. Thus,
the training set represents only about 13% of the total
cells. Approximately 1.61% and 1.36% of the training
set and validation set, respectively, are mineralized.
As in the other case study areas, the trained methods
were used to estimate the probability for mineralization for each of the 14,844 cells, of which about 87%
had not been seen by the models in training.
Analyses
Initial Analysis. The initial analysis employed all
15 variables. Both WOE and Binary PNN employed a
simple presence and absence discretization. As shown
Figure 11. Comparison of Decision Loss for Nevada by PNN, WOE,

logistic regression, and discriminant analysis.
by Figure 11, relative performances of PNN, WOE,

and Binary PNN on this data set are markedly different from those on Carlin and Alamos. The most
striking feature of Figure 11 is that decision losses by
LR and DA are much lower than those by WOE or
PNN. Moreover, unlike Alamos and Carlin, the losses
by LR and DA are about the same, with Logistic Regression being slightly smaller. In the other studies
DA consistently outperformed LR.
A second remarkable feature of Figure 11 is that
losses by Binary PNN are less than those of PNN on
the original variables. Decision losses by PNN, WOE,
and binary PNN are approximately equal for rejection loss multiples up to 20. The binary PNN gives the
lowest expected decision loss for rejection loss multiples greater than 20. Interestingly, decision losses by
PNN exceed those of WOE and binary PNN for moderate rejection loss multiples, for example multiples
between 20 and 70, but WOE incurs the largest losses
for multiples greater than 70. Such a marked change in
relative performances begs explanation, given the relative performances on Carlin and Alamos. This data
set suggests that:
(a) As quantified, the geovariables express little
information that is relevant to mineral occurrence;
(b) redundant or conflicting information confuses training of models; or
(c) some of the cells in the training set that
are currently classified as barren are misclassified, meaning that they have undiscovered mineral deposits.
Because there is no way to determine how many
barren cells have undiscovered deposits, the investigation turned to examination of geovariables for a
discretization that would enhance their information
P1: IAZ/JLS
pp1067-nrr-477452
December 11, 2003
18:23

content, and to a selection that would reduce interdependency.
A Second AnalysisEnhanced Discretization
with CARTS. Using CARTS to build a classification
tree revealed a problematic data set. For example,
the optimum classification tree, given equal priors, a
rejection cost multiplier of 1 (indicating equal losses),
and splitting by the Gini Coefficient employed only 1
variable, Uptec (Upper Tertiary cover!). Moreover,
for priors taken only from the data, CARTS would
not even build a tree. Varying the rejection cost
multiplier changed classification accuracy, but had
little effect on the complexity of the tree or the
importance of the variables. Thus, as with Alamos,
a decision tree a little larger than the optimum was
selected to identify variables to use and their cut
points (splits) for discretization. From that analysis,
only six of the 15 variables were selected, with the
following cut points for discretization: Uptec at
0.90034, Thrusts at 0.36100, Mzvol at 0.00013, Rad
at 0.93890, Geochem at 0.03750, and Lmzsed at
0.20600.
PNN and WOE were trained on the CARTS binary variables and then used to estimate a probability
for mineralization for each of the 14,844 cells. A similar analysis was made for a PNN using the continuous
forms of the CARTS variables. Figure 12 shows that
decision losses for all three methods are considerably
less than with the initial set of variables. However, the
most dramatic result is the great decrease in WOEs
decision losses brought about by using the CARTS
variables: from about 12000 to approximately 1200.
Moreover, decision losses by CARTS-based WOE are
considerably lower than those by either the CARTSbased binary or continuous PNNs. The WOE conditional independence ratio for the CARTS binary
variables on the training set is 0.64 but for the
253
Figure 13. Decision Loss for Nevada by WOE, logistic regression,

and discriminant analysis using CARTS variables.
entire (training + validation) set, that ratio is extremely low, 0.08, indicating severe violation of the
conditional independency assumption even with the
CARTS variables.
The performance of WOE on the CARTS variables contrasts markedly with the relative performances of PNN and WOE in the Alamos and Carlin
studies. It is important to note, however, that even
though losses by the CARTS-based WOE are reduced, they are considerably larger than the decision
losses by LR and DA for all 15 original variables (compare Figs. 11 and 12).
Using the same CARTS binary variables, LR
and canonical DA were trained and used to estimate
a probability for mineralization for all 14,844 cells.
Decision losses by CARTS-based LR are somewhat
lower than for the CARTS-based WOE, but not as
low as LR on the original variables. However, decision losses by CARTS-based canonical DA are noticeably the lowest of all, being lower than those of the
CARTS-based WOE or LR and lower than those by
the LR and DA using the original variables (compare
Figs. 11 and 13).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Figure 12. Decision Loss for Nevada based upon CARTS variables:
WOE and PNN (continuous and binary variables).
The Carlin case study provides the rare opportunity to examine relative performances of favorability
mapping methodologies for a single deposit type
when exploration is complete. This circumstance is
important when comparing mapping methodologies.
Conclusions about relative performance of mapping
methods must be qualified whenever exploration is
incomplete because of possible conflicting or ambiguous information presented for training when mineralized cells are misidentified as belonging to the barren
P1: IAZ/JLS
pp1067-nrr-477452
December 11, 2003
18:23
254
set. Moreover, everything else being equal, the presence of multiple deposit types further compounds the
training of mapping models and the analysis of out-ofsample performance. This study determined the performance of WOE to be inferior to the other methods,
which included PNN, DA, and LR. Furthermore, this
study also demonstrated that only part of this inferior
performance by WOE is the result of the loss of information when the variables are discretized to satisfy
data requirement by WOE.
The relative inferential power of PNN and
WOE was examined by training PNN on the same
discretized variables used by WOE. Interestingly,
expected decision losses by this binary PNN are
considerably lower than those by WOE, thereby
demonstrating that part of the noticeably inferior performance by WOE reflects a less powerful use of
information than by PNN. Moreover, decision losses
by the binary PNN are less than those by Fisher
DA and LR based upon the original variables.
Favorability methods ranked by decision loss on
the Carlin case study from lowest to highest
are:
geology and highly specific geological descriptions

that relate to mineralization.
Considerable exploration is conducted at the district level (Alamos) or large size area (Nevada) under
circumstances less favorable than those of Carlin. The
case studies of Alamos and Nevada explore favorability mappings under some of these less favorable
circumstances. Acknowledging that all results must
be qualified because of incomplete exploration and
abstracting from the details, the following broad, tentative conclusions can be drawn:
Probabilistic Neural Networks (original variables)

Nonparametric Discriminant Analysis (original variables)
Binary Probabilistic Neural Networks (WOE
variables)
Fisher Discriminant Analysis (original variables)
Logistic Regression (original variables)
Weights of Evidence (binary variables)
The performance of WOE may be improved

considerably by replacing a simple presence/absence discretization by one that enhances information relevant to mineral occurrence.
The performance of all methods on problematic data sets can be improved by deleting
or combining redundant, interdependent variables.
Even when variables are discretized to enhance relevant information and redundancy is
reduced, decision losses by WOE are greater
than those by either PNN or canonical DA.
In other words, one of the other alternatives
(PNN and DA) incurs lower decision losses
than WOE.
However, WOE is useful as a data exploratory
tool because it deals effectively with cells with
missing information. Moreover, the method is
intuitive to the explorationist, because its application simulates the superposition of Mylar
maps over a light table.
Although informative, the given ranking fails to note

the large disparity of performance by the poorest,
WOE, and the best, PNN. In that regard, expected
decision losses by WOE are three to six times the
losses by PNN, except for small multiples of rejection
loss. The only possible conclusion to be drawn from
the Carlin study is: The routine use of WOE for favorability mapping incurs a high opportunity cost, because other methods, for example PNN and DA, provide more accurate mappings.
The Carlin study is not typical of applications
of favorability mapping. Seldom has each cell in the
training area been explored to the point that its
mineral state is known with near certainty. Likewise,
seldom is the mineralized state of every cell in a validation set known with near certainty. Besides these, the
Carlin study offered other favorable circumstances,
such as a single deposit type, relatively homogeneous
The Alamos and Nevada case studies strongly

suggest that canonical DA is a more powerful favorability mapping method than either WOE or LR.
These case studies purposefully elected to test the performance of canonical DA instead of nonparametric
DA, even though the study by Harris and Pan (1999)
determined nonparametric DA to compete well with
PNN. A priori considerations would dictate the use
of nonparametric DA because it assumes no specific
distributional properties of the geological variables.
Even so, this study examined canonical DA because
nonparametric DA is more difficult to use, as it involves search parameters. Accordingly, a question addressed by these case studies is: How important is
the assumption made in classical discriminant analysis that the geological variables must be normally
distributed? The approach of this study is a pragmatic
one: If that assumption is important to favorability
P1: IAZ/JLS
pp1067-nrr-477452
December 11, 2003

mapping, it will show up in the relative classification performances and expected decision losses of
canonical DA. Interestingly, by both classification percentages and expected loss of optimal decision, the
assumption of normality does not seem to be an important constraint to the application of canonical DA
to favorability mapping. Even when the geological
variables are binary, having distinctly nonnormal distributions, performances of canonical DA are superior
to LR, WOE, and in some situations PNN. Perhaps,
this is because with canonical DA, probabilities are
based upon discriminant scores, not directly upon the
geological variables. As pointed out by Cooley and
Lohnes (1962) and later by Harris (1984), because
the canonical discriminant score is a weighted sum
of variables, it tends to be more normally distributed
than do the initial variables.
Finally, these three case studies collectively suggest that if WOE is to be used to map favorability,
then good procedure also would be to use PNN and
canonical DA, and compare their performances on a
validation set prior to using any of them to infer favorability on an unexplored area. Good practice would
also include information enhancement and reduction
of variable interdependency.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Special thanks are extended to Don Singer from
the USGS Mineral Resources Team. This manuscript
benefited extensively from his critical review. We also
are grateful to the USGSs Tucson Field Office for
allowing us the use of their GIS Lab.
REFERENCES
Agterberg, F. P., Bonham-Carter, G. F., Cheng, Q. M., and Wright,
D. F., 1993, Weights of evidence modeling and weighted logistic regression for mineral potential mapping, in Davis, J. C.,
and Herzfeld, U. C., eds., Computers in Geology25 Years of
Progress: Oxford Univ. Press, New York, p. 1332.
Bonham-Carter, G. F., 1994, Geographic Information Systems for
geoscientists, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 398 p.
Bonham-Carter, G. F., Kerswill, J. A., Shaw, J., and Chorlton, L.,
1998, Iron-formation gold and volcanic-associated massivesulphide base-metal potential in Slave Province by weights
of evidence; a preliminary appraisal (abst.) - Geol. Assoc.
Canada; Mineral. Assoc. Canada; Can. Geophy. Union, Joint
Annual Meeting 23 Program with Abstracts p. A20.
Breiman, L., Friedman, J., Olshen, R., and Stone, C. J., 1984, Classification and regression trees: Chapman and Hall, New York,
368 p.
18:23
255
Cooley, W. W., and Lohnes, P. R., 1962, Multivariate procedures
for the behavioral sciences: John Wiley & Sons, New York,
211 p.
Frank, D. G., 1999, Mineral Resources Data System (MRDS) data
base: U.S. Geol. Survey digital data series DDS-52, 1 CDROM.
Grossman, J. N., 1998, National geochemical atlas: The geochemical landscape of the conterminous United States derived from
stream sediment and other solid sample media analyzed by the
National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE) Program
(version 3.01): U.S. Geol. Survey Open-File Rept. 980622,
1 CD-ROM.
Harris, D. P., 1984, Mineral resources appraisal; mineral endowment, resources, and potential supply; concepts, methods, and
cases: Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 455 p.
Harris, D. P., and Pan, G., 1999, Mineral favorability mapping: A
comparison of artificial neural networks, logistic regression,
and discriminant analysis: Natural Resources Research, v. 8,
no. 2, p. 93109.
Kemp, L. D., Bonham-Carter, G. F., and Raines, G. L., 1999, ArcWofE: Arc View extension for weights of evidence mapping:
http://gis.nrcan.gc.ca/software/arcview/wofe.
Kucks, R. P., 1999a, Magnetic anomaly data grid: U.S. Geol. Survey
digital data series DDS-09, 1 CD-ROM.
Kucks, R. P., 1999b, Gravity anomaly data grid: U.S. Geol. Survey
digital data series DDS-09, 1 CD-ROM.
Mihalasky, M. J., and Bonham-Carter, G. F., 2001, Lithodiversity
and its spatial association with metallic mineral sites, Great
Basin of Nevada: Natural Resources Research, v. 10, no. 3,
p. 209226.
Pan, G., 1989, Concepts and methods of multivariate information
synthesis for mineral resources estimation: unpubl. doctoral
dissertation, Univ. Arizona, 302 p.
Pan, G., and Harris, D. P., 2000, Information synthesis for mineral
exploration: Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 461 p.
Phillips, J. D., Duval, J. S., and Ambroziak, R. A., 1993, National
geophysical data grids: gamma-ray, gravity, magnetic, and topographic data for the conterminous United States: U.S. Geol.
Survey digital data series DDS-09, 1 CD-ROM.
Singer, D. A., and Kouda, R., 1999, A comparison of the weights-ofevidence method and probabilistic neural networks: Natural
Resources Research, v. 8, no. 4, p. 287298.
Steinberg, D., and Colla, P. L., 1995, CART: Tree-structured
non-parametric data analysis: Salford Systems, San Diego,
California
Turner, R. M., Bawiec, W. J, and Ambroziak, R. A., 1991, Geology
of Nevada; a digital representation of the 1978 geologic map
of Nevada: U.S. Geol. Survey digital data series DDS-02, 1
CD-ROM.
Vazquez-Perez, A., 1975, Economic geology of the Alamos mining
district, Sonora, Mexico: unpubl. masters thesis, Univ. Arizona,
170 p.
Wright, D. F., and Bonham-Carter, G. F., 1996, VHMS favourability mapping with GIS-based integration models, Chisel LakeAnderson Lake area, in Bonham-Carter, G. F., Galley, A. G.,
and Hall, G. E. M., eds., EXTECH I; a multidisciplinary approach to massive sulphide research in the Rusty Lake-Snow
Lake greenstone belts, Manitoba: Geol. Survey Canada, Bull.
p. 339379.

A Comparative Analysis of Favorability Mappings1

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

A Comparative Analysis of Favorability Mappings1

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

P1: IAZ/JLS

Natural Resources Research (NRR)

December 11, 2003

Style file version Nov. 07, 2000

A Comparative Analysis of Favorability Mappings by

Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson,

To whom correspondence should be addressed: Department of

December 11, 2003

Style file version Nov. 07, 2000

Harris, Zurcher, Stanley, Marlow, and Pan

Perspective for this Study

Favorability Mapping Defined

The starting point for this study is the recognition

The favorability mapping paradigm consists of

Data Integration by Weights of Evidence:

Weights of Evidence (WOE)

Relevant Previous Work

December 11, 2003

Style file version Nov. 07, 2000