Abstract
A geological survey project, including the exploration of nonrenewable resources, typically includes the following steps: planning of the survey, field mapping, acquisition of data, achieving of data, processing and fusion of all relevant information, which are closely followed by an interpretation of the final survey results. In this process, important spatial data layers are topographic map, often digital elevation model (DEM), geological map, several sets of geochemical and geophysical survey maps, airborne or space-borne remote sensing data and, sometimes, old archived data. Each of these multiple layers of geological exploration data can first be preprocessed, and input into a chosen geographic information systems (GISs). This will be followed by information representation and fusion steps for the final imaging of the processed and fused information. Most commercially available GISs however do not have information fusion and focusing capabilities. Users of the slected GIS must first be able to represent the preprocessed geological survey information with respect to the target geological hypothesis. In the case of mineral exploration, the target hypothesis can be a specific mineral deposit(s) being explored.
Compared to the model driven exploration approach, the data driven geological exploration utilizes multiple sets of exploration data and there are several mathematical tools available for information representation and fusion. Some of these include the traditional probability approach, evidential belief function methods, AI/Expert systems and the fuzzy logic approach.
In this paper, the fuzzy logic approach of quantifying the exploration information with respect to the target hypothesis, and several of the fuzzy operators which are frequently used for geological resource exploration are critically reviewed. Although our understanding of the fuzzy information representation and fuzzy operators is still incomplete, many case studies of applying fuzzy logic approaches to various exploration projects have concluded that the final fuzzy membership function maps or the final fuzzy theme maps are considerably more accurate than the results obtained using any conventional intuitive approach, including the brute stack of the exploration (spatial) data using a GIS. In general, the efficiency and accuracy of the final fused information with respect to the target hypothesis increases with the increasing number of geological exploration data layers.
If a specific Earth system model is available, or a mineral deposit model in the case of mineral exploration projects, is available or is known a priori, fuzzy logic approach can easily be combined with currently popular machine-reasoning processes such as the neural network approach. In this type of quantitative spatial reasoning and fuzzy logic information fusion, uncertainty and error analysis is also important. In most cases, propagation of errors and uncertainties can be handled and estimated in the same manner as the processing and fusion of main exploration data.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
An, P., 1992, Spatial Reasoning and Integration Techniques for Geophysical and Geological Exploration Data. Ph.D. thesis, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, 280 p.
An, P., Moon, W.M. and Rencz, A., 1991, Integration of geological, geophysical and remote sensing data using fuzzy logic. Journal of Canadian Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 27, 1–11.
An, P., Moon, W.M. and Bonham-Carter, G.F., 1994, Uncertainty management of exploration data using the Belief Function. Nonrenewable Resources, 3, 60–71.
Benediktsson, J.A., Ingimundarson, J.I. and Sveinsson, J.R., 1997, Classification and feature extraction of hyperdimensional data using LOOC covariance estimation. IGARSS'97 (Proceedings), Singapore, August, p. B10.03.
Bonham-Carter, G.F., 1994, Geographic Information Systems for Geoscientists, Pergamon Press, Kidlington, 398 p.
Burrough, P.A., 1986, Principles of Geographic Information Systems for Land Resources Assessment. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 194 p.
Goguen, J.A., 1967, L-fuzzy sets. Journal of Mathematical Association of America, 18, 145–174.
Goguen, J.A., 1969, The logic of inexact concepts. Syntheses, 19, 325–373.
Hauptmann, W. and Heesche, K., 1995, A neural net topology for bidirectional fuzzy-neuro transformation. IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (Proceedings, Vol. 3), Yokohama, March, 1995, p. 1511–1518.
Ishibuchi, H., Morisawa, T. and Nakashima, T., 1996, Voting schemes for fuzzy-rule-based classification systems. IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy System (Proceedings, Vol. 1), New Orleans, September, p. 614–620.
Iyanaga, S. and Kawada, Y., eds., 1980, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Mathematics. MIT Press, Cambridge, p. 1167–1170.
Jiang, W.W., Moon, W.M. and Feng, L.N., 1997, Data fusion Research for Mineral Exploration Data from Hwanggang-ri Region, Korea. Technical Report #17, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, 62 p.
Klement, E.P., 1980, Fuzzy measures by classical measures. In: Wang, P.P. and Chang, S.K. (eds.), Fuzzy Sets. Plenum Press, New York, p. 25–33.
Mathai, A.M. and Rathie, P.N., 1975, Information Theory and Statistics, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 137 p.
Moon, W.M., 1990, Integration of multiple sets of geophysical information using evidential belief function. IEEE Transaction of Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 28, 272–278.
Moon, W.M., 1993, Mathematical basis for geophysical information representation and integration. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing, 19, 63–67.
Moon, W.M., 1995, Information representation and integration of multiple sets of spatial geoscience data. IGARSS'95 (Proceedings), Florence, August, 1995, p. 1021–1022.
Moon, W.M. and Jiang, W.W., 1995, Integrated Exploration of Base Metal Deposits in East Java, Indonesia, Technical Report #14, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, 34 p.
Moon, W.M., Jiang, W.W., Yun, S.G. and So, C.S., 1998, Data fusion modeling of the Hwanggang-ri mineralization zone. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing. Remote Sensing. (submitted)
Pawlak, Z., 1996, Why rough sets? IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy System (Proceedings, Vol. 2), New Orleans, September, p. 738–743.
Shannon, C.E., 1948, A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technology Journal, 27, 379–423, 623–656.
Takagi, H. and Hayashi, I., 1991, NN-driven fuzzy reasoning. Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 5, 191–212.
Wang, P.P. and Chang, S.K., eds., 1980, Fuzzy Sets. Plenum Press, New York, 413 p.
Yager, R.R., 1992, Implementing fuzzy logic controllers using a neural network framework. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 48, 53–64.
Yao, C.C. and Kuo, Y.H., 1996, A fuzzy neural network model with three-layered structure. IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy System (Proceedings, Vol. 3), New Orleans, September, p. 1503–1510.
Zadeh, L.A., 1965, Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8, 338–353.
Zadeh, L.A., 1968, Probability measures of fuzzy events. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Application, 23, 421–427.
Zadeh, L.A., 1987, Fuzzy sets. In: Yager, R.R., Ovichinikov, S., Tong, R.M. and Nguyon, H.T. (eds.), Fuzzy Sets and Applications. John-Wiley, New York, p. 29–44.
Zadeh, L.A., 1987, Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility. In: Yager, R.R., Ovichinikov, S., Tong, R.M. and Nguyon, H.T. (eds.), Fuzzy Sets and Applications. John-Wiley, New York, p. 193–218.
Zadeh, L.A., 1987, A theory of approximate reasoning. In: Yager, R.R., Ovichinikov, S., Tong, R.M. and Nguyon, H.T. (eds.), Fuzzy Sets and Applications. John-Wiley, New York, p. 368–412.
Zimmermann, H.J., 1984, Fuzzy Set Theory and Its Applications. Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing, Boston, 357 p.
Zimmermann, H.J. and Zysno, P., 1980, Latent connectives in human decision making. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 4, 37–51.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Moon, W.M. Integration and fusion of geological exploration data: a theoretical review of fuzzy logic approach. Geosci J 2, 175–183 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02910163
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02910163