1 Rock 2 Rock 2 2 Rock 3 Rock 3 3 Rock 5 Rock 1 4 Rock 1 Rock 5 5 Rock 4 Rock 4 The resulting decision tree corresponding to the two hierarchical orders compared in this study are presented in Figure 3. The trees are represented using the symbology described by Caers (2011), where squares denote decision nodes with labeled branches listing the possible alternatives, circles denote uncertainty nodes with branches representing possible outcomes and their associated probabilities, and triangles denote payoff nodes, with values indicated at the terminal branches. Additionally, we represent the output triangles with the corresponding category color. The probabilities in the branches of the uncertainty circles are obtained at each node by ordinary indicator kriging (IK) of the corresponding category. Figure 3: Decision tree illustrating the simulation workflow designed for this experiment. During the first two levels, the hierarchical structure is identical; thereafter, the tree bifurcates into two branches. Table 3 – Input parameters Parameter Value Dataset Jura (Goovaerts, 1997) Variable Rock Categories 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Global proportions 0.18; 0.40; 0.25; 0.02; 0.15 Grid cells (nx, ny, nz) 250; 295; 1 Cell size 17.5 x 17.5 x 1 Total nodes 73,750 Random seeds 69069; 69071; 69073; 69075 Max. data / nodes 12/12 Max. per octant 6 Search radii (hx, hy, hz) 1200; 1200; 1 Variogram model (same for all classes) Isotropic spherical Nugget effect 0.0 Sill 0.25 Ranges (hmax, hmin, v) 1000; 1000; 0 Kriging type Ordinary Indicator Kriging
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2