Page 219 - Geochemical Anomaly and Mineral Prospectivity Mapping in GIS
P. 219

Knowledge-Driven Modeling of Mineral Prospectivity                   221



























           Fig. 7-14. Variation of output fuzzy membership scores (μ i ), obtained from two input fuzzy scores
           μ 1  and μ 2 , as a function of γ in the fuzzy gamma (FG) operator. In this case, μ 1 =0.8 and μ 2 =0.2. If
           γ=0, then μ i(FG) =μ i(FAP) . If γ=1, then μ i(FG) =μ i(FAS) . When 0.97<γ<1, μ i(FG) >μ 1 due to the ‘increasive
           effect of FAS (fuzzy algebraic sum). When 0<γ<0.14, μ i(FG) <μ 2 due to the ‘decreasive effect of
           FAP (fuzzy algebraic product). When 0.14<γ<0.97, the value of μ i(FG)  lies in the range of the input
           fuzzy scores. Thus, the value of γ that constrains the output values of μ i  in the range of the input
           fuzzy scores depends on the values of the input fuzzy scores. (cf. Bonham-Carter, 1994, pp. 298.)


           maps and the ranges of input fuzzy scores at one location (or pixel) to another can be
           highly variable. So, the  graph shown in Fig.  7-14 only serves to illustrate the
           ‘decreasive’ effect of the FAP and the ‘increasive’ effect of the FAS but it is not a device
           that can be used to determine a suitable value of γ. The final choice of an optimal value
           of  γ depends on some experiments and judgment of the ‘best’ output of mineral
           prospectivity model. For example, Carranza and Hale (2001a) obtained optimal mineral
           prospectivity models from values of γ that vary between 0.73 and 0.79, which imply that
           delineated prospective areas are defined by spatial evidence that are more supplementary
           rather than complementary to one another.
              Any one of the above-explained fuzzy operators may be applied to logically combine
           evidential fuzzy sets (or maps) according to an inference network, which  reflects
           inferences about the inter-relationships of processes that control the occurrence of a geo-
           object (e.g., mineral deposit) and spatial features that indicate the presence of that geo-
           object.  As in  Boolean logical  modeling, every  step in a fuzzy inference network, in
           which at least two evidential maps are combined, represents a hypothesis of an inter-play
           of at least two sets of processes that control the occurrence of a geo-object (e.g., mineral
           deposit) and spatial features that indicate the presence of that geo-object.  The inference
           network and the fuzzy  operators thus form a series of  logical rules that sequentially
   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224