Response to comment by Helmut Schaeben on “A Comparison of Modified Fuzzy Weights of Evidence, Fuzzy Weights of Evidence, and Logistic Regression for Mapping Mineral Prospectivity-
参考文献:1. Agterberg FP (1989) Computer programs for mineral exploration. Science 245:76-1 2. Agterberg FP (1992) Combining indicator patterns in weights of evidence modeling for resource evaluation. Nat Resour Res 1:35-0 CrossRef 3. Agterberg FP (2009) A modified weights-of-evidence method for regional mineral resource estimation. In: Proceedings of the 11th conference of IAMG, Stanford University, August 2009 4. Agterberg FP (2011) A modified weights-of-evidence method for regional mineral resource estimation. Nat Resour Res 20(2):95-01 CrossRef 5. Agterberg FP, Bonham-Carter GF (1999) Logistic regression and weights of evidence modeling in mineral exploration. In: Proceedings of the 28th International Symposium on Computer Applications in the Mineral Industries. Colorado School of Mines, Golden, pp 483-90 6. Agterberg FP, Bonham-Carter GF (2005) Measuring the performance of mineral potential maps. Nat Resour Res 14(1):1-8 CrossRef 7. Agterberg FP, Cheng Q (2002) Conditional independence test for weights-of-evidence modeling. Nat Resour Res 11(2):249-55 CrossRef 8. Bonham-Carter GF (1994) Geographic information systems for geoscientists: modeling with GIS. Pergamon, Oxford, p 398 9. Cheng Q (2008) Non-linear theory and power-law models for information integration and mineral resources quantitative assessments. Math Geosci 40:503-32 CrossRef 10. Cheng Q (2013) Sequential weights of evidence as a machine learning model for mineral deposits prediction. In: Proceedings of the 15th conference of IAMG, Madrid, Spain, September 02-6, 2013, pp 157-61 11. Deng M (2009) A conditional dependence adjusted weights of evidence model. Nat Resour Res 18(4):249-58 CrossRef 12. Lindsay MD, Betts PG, Ailleres L (2014) Data fusion and porphyry copper prospectivity models. Southeastern Arizona. Ore Geol Rev 61:120-40 CrossRef 13. Schaeben H (2014a) A mathematical view of weights-of-evidence, conditional independence, and logistic regression in terms of Markov random fields. Math Geosci 46(6):691-09 CrossRef 14. Schaeben H (2014b) Potential modeling: conditional independence matters. GEM-International Journal on Geomathematics 5(1):99-16 CrossRef 15. Schaeben H (2014c) Comment on “A Comparison of Modified Fuzzy Weights of Evidence, Fuzzy Weights of Evidence, and Logistic Regression for Mapping Mineral Prospectively-by Daojun Zhang, Frits Agterberg, Qiuming Cheng, and Renguang Zuo. Math Geosci. doi:10.1007/s11004-014-9544-z 16. Schaeben H, van den Boogaart KG (2011) Comment on “A conditional dependence adjusted weights of evidence model-by Minfeng Deng in Natural Resources Research 18(2009), 249-58. Nat Resour Res 20(4):401-06 CrossRef 17. Spiegelhalter DJ (1986) Uncertainty in expert systems. In: Gale WA (ed) Artificial intelligence and statistics. Addison-Wesley, Reading MAS, pp 17-5 18. Spiegelhalter DJ, Knill-Jones RP (1984) Statistical and knowledge-based approaches to clinical decision-support systems, with an application in gastroenterology. J R Stat Soc A 147(1):35-7 CrossRef 19. Thiart C, Bonham-Carter GB, Agterberg FP, Cheng Q, Panahi A (2006) An application of the new omnibus test for conditional independence in weights-of-evidence modeling. In: Harris J (ed) GIS in the Earth Sciences, Geological Association of Canada Special Volume, pp 131-42 20. Zhang D, Agterberg FP, Cheng Q, Zuo R (2013) A comparison of modified fuzzy weights of evidence, fuzzy weights of evidence, and logistic regression for mapping mineral prospectivity. Math Geol. doi:10.1007/s11004-013-9496-8
1. State Key Laboratory of Geological Processes and Mineral Resources, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, 430047, China 2. Ministry of Natural Resources Canada, Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, ON, K1A0E8, Canada 3. Department of Earth and Space Science and Engineering, York University, Toronto, ON, M3J1P3, Canada