Grade Estimation from Radial Basis

Functions – How Does it Compare with

Conventional Geostatistical Estimation?
M Stewart1, J de Lacey2, P F Hodkiewicz3,4 and R Lane5

ABSTRACT
Implicit modelling is an approach to spatial modelling in which the distribution of a target variable
is described by a unique mathematical function that is derived directly from the underlying data
and high-level parametric controls specified by the user. This modelling approach may be applied
to discrete variables such as lithology (after converting the discrete codes to numeric values)
or to continuous variables such as geochemical grades. This paper discusses the estimation of
continuous (grade) variables using implicit modelling.
One of the underlying engines of implicit modelling for producing this mathematical function
description is the radial basis function (RBF). In essence, the RBF is a weighted sum of functions
positioned on each data point. A system of linear equations is solved to derive weights and the
coefficients of any underlying drift model coefficients. Once derived, the RBF may be solved for
any unsampled point or averaged over any volume to provide an estimate of grade. It is possible,
for example, to query the RBF on a regular grid to derive an estimate of block grades. Given the
ease of creation of an RBF, and its ability to predict grade, the question arises as to how the grades
derived from the solution of an RBF compare with grade estimates derived from conventional
geostatistical interpolation methods (eg ordinary kriging (OK)).
The purpose of this paper is to describe in lay terms:
•• the basic structure of an RBF
•• the role of parametric choice in the solution of RBFs and how this influences the character of
the solution
•• the fundamental similarities and differences between RBFs and conventional geostatistical
estimators.
Using a high-resolution conditional simulation, we show that in many situations RBF and OK
estimates are very similar.

INTRODUCTION
In recent years, implicit wireframe models have increasingly
been used to develop coherent 3D shapes for subsequent use
in estimation via traditional methods (eg ordinary kriging
(OK)). The term ‘implicit modelling’ was introduced to the
task of modelling geological surface geometries by Cowan
et al (2003). Implicit modelling describes an approach to
spatial modelling in which a combination of the data and
parametric controls specified by the user define a unique
mathematical volume function. This approach may be applied
to the modelling of surfaces from categorical variables, such
as lithology, or to the modelling of continuous variables, such
as geochemical grades throughout space. The most common
function currently in use for implicit modelling is the radial
basis function (RBF). The term implicit is used because the
surface being modelled exists implicitly within the volume
function as an iso-potential surface defined by the data rather
than by an explicit drawing process. This volume function
may then be gridded, or ‘rendered’, into a wireframe for
visualisation or subsequent modelling use.
The method of implicit modelling is now widely used for
the modelling of surface geometry from categorical logging
data and for the modelling of ‘grade iso-surfaces’ based on
continuous grade variables. What many people are unaware
of is that the implicit models used to generate ‘grade iso-
surfaces’ can also provide point or block estimates of grade. In
many situations, these are very similar to estimates obtained
from more familiar estimation methods such as OK. There is
a reason for this – it can be shown (Carr et al, 2001; Chiles

1. MAusIMM, Senior Principal Consultant, QG Pty Ltd, PO Box 1304, Fremantle WA 6959. Email: ms@qgconsulting.com.au
2. Technical Services Team Leader, ARANZ Geo Ltd, 41 Leslie Hills Drive, Riccarton, Christchurch 8011, New Zealand. Email: jacob.delacey@leapfrog3d.com
3. FAusIMM, Senior Manager Resource Evaluation, BHP Billiton, 125 St Georges Terrace, Perth WA 6000. Email: paul.hodkiewicz@bhpbilliton.com
4. Adjunct Research Fellow, Centre for Exploration Targeting, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley WA 6009.
5. Research Director, ARANZ Geo Ltd, 41 Leslie Hills Drive, Riccarton, Christchurch 8011, New Zealand. Email: richard.lane@leapfrog3d.com

NINTH INTERNATIONAL MINING GEOLOGY CONFERENCE / ADELAIDE, SA, 18–20 AUGUST 2014 129
M STEWART et al

and Delfiner, 1999; Costa, Pronzato and Thierry, 1999) that the compared to the other in terms of cost or speed. We prefer to
RBF is mathematically equivalent to a particular formulation leave it up to the practitioners and software manufacturers to
of kriging (dual kriging (DK)). In practice, estimates derived make that case.
from RBFs are also often very similar to those produced
by OK. Study workflow
The purpose of this paper is to describe (in simple terms) The generalised workflow for this paper is as follows:
the basic structure of an RBF and to illustrate the similarities •• create a simulation on a 300 × 300 × 10 m grid (1 × 1 × 1 m
this has to kriging. We will also briefly discuss the role of nodes) using a Gaussian random function (sequential
parameter choice in the solution of RBFs and show how this Gaussian simulation)
influences the character of the solution. •• back-transform the Gaussian values to a negatively-
skewed distribution with a mean of 54 per cent
GENERAL METHODOLOGY (approximating an Fe ore)
The proportion of a deposit physically sampled is invariably a •• sample ‘drill holes’ from the simulation on a 10 × 10 m
tiny proportion of the in situ reality. Even the highest density of pattern
sampling typically conducted (eg blast hole sampling for final •• define a variogram based on sampled ‘drill holes’
grade control) will only physically test around 0.1 per cent •• estimate grades on to 1 × 1 × 1 m nodes using OK
(one part in 1000) of the total volume. For resource estimation •• create the RBF and evaluate it onto 1 × 1 × 1 m nodes
drill patterns, this proportion may be less than 0.001 per cent
•• compare the RBF and OK estimates against underlying
(one part in 100 000). A model is required to estimate what is
reality.
in the unsampled volume.
The purpose of estimating on the underlying simulation
The purpose of models is to predict ‘reality’ and reduce the nodes rather than on to blocks is to enable a comparison of the
need for further sampling. In a situation like mining grade estimates to the underlying ‘reality’, and to show the ‘field’
control, we must make predictions of metal grade in order lines of the OK interpolant when performed at fine scale.
to decide what material to mine and process as ore and what
to send to waste. What is mined and processed is of course
reality, not the model.
THE IDEA OF INTERPOLATION
Interpolation is the process of predicting (estimating) the value
Ultimately, the only means for assessing the quality of a
of an attribute at an unsampled location from measurements
model is reconciliation between the predicted tonnage and
of the attribute made at surrounding sites (Figure 1). In linear
grade from the model and the tonnage and back-calculated
interpolation, the grade at the target location is calculated
head grade of the milled material. However, there are many
as a weighted linear average of the sample data. Different
other factors between model and mill that influence this
interpolators use different methods for determining the value
comparison (eg ore-blocking, blast movement, ore-loss and
of the weights.
dilution, tails sampling, conveyor mass calculations etc).
Reconciliation can provide, at best, a loose indication of the When the point to be estimated is within the field of available
quality of a resource model, not an objective measure. data, the process is called interpolation; when the point is
outside the data field, the process is termed extrapolation.
The ultimate method of objectively assessing the quality
This process may be undertaken in one, two, three or four
of any estimation method would be to obtain exhaustive
dimensions. Typically in mineral resource estimation, we
information, extract a subset of this information and use this
are concerned with practical three dimensional problems
to perform an estimate, and then compare the estimate with
the measured observations. This is clearly impractical (except
perhaps at laboratory scale). The better (and in fact only
practical) alternative is to use a synthetic version of reality – a
conditional simulation.
This study compares the results of grade estimation based
on evaluation of an RBF against grade estimates from the
generally accepted method of OK. Relative comparisons are
interesting, but these provide no indication of which method
is ‘best’ as this must be derived from a comparison with an
independent ground truth. Consequently, in this study, we
have adopted an experimental approach of using a simulation
model to represent the underlying ‘reality’, drawn data sets
from this reality and used this data to make grade estimates
by both the RBF and OK.
Results from the RBF and OK are then compared, both
against each other and against the underlying reality. This
allows the study to concentrate on the real matter at hand –
the relative performance of one method of grade interpolation
(OK) with another (the RBF) in predicting ‘reality’.
This study has deliberately not used a case study based
on real data. The only outcome possible from a case study
comparison of estimation methods is to produce two
separate grade estimates, with no idea whether either is ‘fit
for purpose’ or which is the better predictor. Assuming both FIG 1 – An illustration of interpolation with a local
estimates are fit for purpose, the matter of interest for the user neighbourhood. x0 is the target point, z(xi) are the measured
in this scenario is whether one method provides advantages values at location xi , λi is the weight given to sample i.

130 NINTH INTERNATIONAL MINING GEOLOGY CONFERENCE / ADELAIDE, SA, 18–20 AUGUST 2014
 GRADE ESTIMATION FROM RADIAL BASIS FUNCTIONS – HOW DOES IT COMPARE WITH CONVENTIONAL GEOSTATISTICAL ESTIMATION?
– predicting the grade of an attribute (eg a metal grade) at
unsampled locations from values measured in scattered drill
samples. It is an underlying assumption that the attribute we
are attempting to predict is spatially continuous – that it takes
a real value at all possible locations.
There are many different forms of interpolator possible. The
most basic is the piece-wise constant method, more familiarly
known as nearest neighbour estimation, in which any
unsampled location simply takes the value of the nearest data
point. The resultant continuous estimator takes the form of a
mosaic pattern, with patches of constant grade separated by
sudden steps. This is not a very realistic representation of the
way in which real attributes, like metal grades, are observed
to vary in practice, and it gives significantly different weights
to the samples at the spatial extremities of the data set. For
the sake of simplicity in discussion, this paper will
consider that the attribute being predicted is the grade of a
metal, however, the idea can be simply extended to any
continuous variable.
When considering the merits of different methods of
interpolation, it is helpful to start by looking at the observed
characteristics of real attributes in nature. The following
general observations can be made about most metal
distributions:
•• ‘Average’ grades vary within a deposit. While this is a
scale-dependent phenomenon, typically it is possible
to draw contours of grades and delineate higher-grade
areas from lower. Consequently, observations are usually
not independent – grades at close distances are more
similar than grades further apart. This is modelled using
auto-correlation, which decays as a function of distance
(correlated behaviour).
•• The strength of correlation may differ in different
directions (anisotropy).
•• At some separation, correlation no longer exists (range).
•• There is usually a non-spatial component to variability.
Repeat measurements (eg duplicate samples) are not
identical due to errors in sampling and analysis and/or
geological variation at scales smaller than a drill sample
(nugget effect).
The kriging interpolator (local)
Interpolators fall in to two general types – global or local. A
global interpolator takes into consideration all known points
to estimate a value, while local interpolation uses a subset of
the data, usually defined by a search neighbourhood centred
on the point being estimated.
The interpolator that is probably used most commonly
in mining is kriging, or more particularly OK. The general
idea is straightforward – the estimation of a point is based
on a weighted linear combination of local data values, with
the weights being calculated in such a way as to minimise
the error variance based on an assumed model for spatial
covariance. Kriging is underpinned by a number of key
assumptions:
•• The underlying assumption is that the sample observations
are interpreted to be the results of a random process.
The variable under study (for example Fe grades) can
then be described by a mathematical random function.
This conceptualisation of the data is simply a neat trick
that allows us to describe reality as the outcome of a
probabilistic model.
•• The key step in geostatistical modelling is the adoption
of a spatial model (the variogram) that describes the
underlying random function. The choice of spatial model
NINTH INTERNATIONAL MINING GEOLOGY CONFERENCE / ADELAIDE, SA, 18–20 AUGUST 2014
is normally based on fitting a function to the available
experimental data, although there is no explicit link
and this function is often chosen more for mathematical
convenience than being derived from an analysis of the
mineralisation process.
•• Adoption of a model that summarises the random process
allows the error variance (the variance of the ‘on average’
difference between estimated and true grade) to be
expressed in terms of spatial covariances and weighting
factors applied to the samples (kriging weights). Spatial
covariances are specified by the choice of variogram model
made and the locations of the data. Conventional algebra
provides the means to find the set of kriging weights that
minimises the error variance.
These attributes are characteristic of all kriging systems. The
most common variants of kriging are simple kriging (SK), OK
and universal kriging (UK). What distinguishes these is the
way in which variation in mean grade (drift) is incorporated
into the kriging systems.
Dealing with drift
Any variable described by a random function can be
decomposed into a deterministic drift component and a
residual stochastic component, as follows:
Z (x) = m (x) + Y (x)
where:
Z(x) is the random function at location x (eg Fe grades)
m(x) is the mean grade at location x
Y(x) is the residual random function
Usually, it is assumed that the drift can be expressed
locally as a linear combination of known basis functions –
usually polynomial terms of low degree (f i) – with unknown
coefficients (ai ):
n
m (x) = / ai f i (x)
i=1
Common drift models used are:
•• constant – polynomial of degree 0
•• linear – polynomial of degree 1
•• quadratic – polynomial of degree 2
In theory, it is possible to use higher-degree polynomials
to model the drift, but in practice it is inadvisable to do so
because of the high degree of variation in the extrapolation
at the spatial extremes of the data. It must be remembered
that decomposition of the random variable into drift and
stochastic components is simply a mechanism to allow us to
describe a real phenomenon in mathematical terms. But the
real phenomenon is not actually the result of a mathematical
process of known character. The more complex the model
(and the fewer the data) used to describe drift, the less likely
it is to have any resemblance to reality.
Determination of the coefficients of the drift polynomials is
often challenging – they may be either specified by user choice
or calculated from the data by minimisation of some criteria.
A one-dimensional example of a drift model fitted to a
random function is shown in Figure 2. Note that the second
degree polynomial drift model is calculated from the
known sample data (10 m spaced), not from the underlying
(unknown) random function. In practice, there is inevitably
uncertainty attached to the choice of drift model.
131
M STEWART et al
FIG 2 – Illustration of quadratic function fitted to data extracted from a random function.
Different kriging systems
As explained previously, what distinguishes the different
kriging systems is the way in which variation in mean grade
(drift) is incorporated into the kriging systems.
Simple kriging
SK assumes that the expectation of the mean (m) is both
constant throughout the domain and of known value
(intrinsic stationarity). This is equivalent to saying that the
drift component is constant and known. It is usually estimated
using the declustered mean of the available sample data.
The SK estimator at any point reduces to a combination of
two components: a weighted average of local data and the
domain mean. Estimates close to data will give more weight
to the local estimate, while estimates further from data will be
dominated by the domain mean.
SK is seldom used in practice as the underlying assumption
(constant, known mean) is too severe for most applications.
Moreover, the incorporation of the mean grade as a weighted
term in the SK estimate means that, away from the influence
of sample data, the estimator reverts to the mean grade. In
most mineral deposits, grade diminishes towards the margin
and this is often where drilling data is lowest. Having an
estimator that reverts towards the mean in this region is
generally not realistic.
Ordinary kriging
The assumption that distinguishes OK from other kriging
systems is that the expectation of the mean is unknown but
is constant at the scale of the search neighbourhood (an
assumption known as quasi-stationarity within the intrinsic
132 NINTH INTERNATIONAL MINING GEOLOGY CONFERENCE / ADELAIDE, SA, 18–20 AUGUST 2014
hypothesis). What this means in practice is that there should be
no trends present in the local mean grade at less than the scale
of the search. This is a somewhat slippery concept since it is
unusual to have a clear scale at which this separation applies.
In practice, this means that the variations in sampled grades
present within a local neighbourhood should be plausible
random fluctuations around a constant local mean grade,
without a strong trend being present. This then allows the
OK system to accommodate variation in the local mean such
that the estimate is always centred on the weighted average of
the samples present in the local neighbourhood. This means
that the specification of the local search neighbourhood has
a critical influence on the quality of the kriging estimator –
in particular, the neighbourhood must be sufficiently large
that the data contained adequately represents the local mean
grade.
When extrapolating beyond the limits of data, the OK
estimator does not revert towards the global mean, but
maintains the local mean specified by the closest samples.
Universal kriging
The theory of UK was proposed by Matheron in 1969
(Armstrong, 1984) to provide a general solution to linear
estimation in the presence of drift. This theory assumes that
the local mean is unknown but varies in a systematic fashion
and can be written as a finite expansion of known basis
functions (f) and fixed (but unknown) coefficients (a). The drift
information may then be incorporated into the expression of
the estimation variance.
It was very quickly realised that there are severe practical
difficulties in the implementation of UK. The development
of the UK system assumes that the underlying variogram
 GRADE ESTIMATION FROM RADIAL BASIS FUNCTIONS – HOW DOES IT COMPARE WITH CONVENTIONAL GEOSTATISTICAL ESTIMATION?
(incorporating drift) is known; in this situation, the kriging
system correctly yields both the drift coefficients and the
weights. In practice, however, the underlying variogram is
invariably unknown. This leaves us with a circular problem;
in order to calculate the residuals we need to know the drift,
but in order to know the drift we need to know the UK system.
This circularity does not preclude the use of UK, but does
mean that great caution must be exercised in its application.
Assuming a drift model and working only with residuals will
result in a biased estimate of the true underlying variogram
(Armstrong, 1984).
In the authors’ experience, UK is seldom used in practice.
Dual kriging
The previously discussed kriging estimators are all based on
linear combinations of sample data values. It is also possible
to rewrite the UK estimator in terms of the covariances σ(xi,x)
and drift functions f   l(x) only, omitting any direct reference
to the data. This is known as DK. The development is not
shown here, but a clear exposition is given in Chiles and
Delfiner (1999) and Galli, Murillo and Thomann (1984). The
term ‘dual‘ originates from an alternative derivation of these
equations by minimisation in a functional space, similar to
splines (Chiles and Delfiner, 1999).
) (x)
Zdk = / cl f l (x) + / ba v (xa , x)
l a
Expressed in English, the estimate at any point (x0) is the
sum of two components:
FIG 3 – One-dimensional illustration of estimation by dual kriging, illustrating the contribution of drift and covariance
terms. The model used to calculate covariances is a spherical model with a sill of 7.8 m and range of 3 m.
NINTH INTERNATIONAL MINING GEOLOGY CONFERENCE / ADELAIDE, SA, 18–20 AUGUST 2014
1. A deterministic component carried by the sum of the drift
l
function terms at the target location: /
l c f (x) .
l
2. A probabilistic component calculated as the weighted
sum of the covariances between the target location and
all sample locations: a/
ab v (x , x) . Because the value of
a
the covariance (or variogram) function is largest at short
distances, it is easy to see that this term will be largest
when the target point is close to data. The values of the b
coefficient are influenced by clustering, and the distance
of the sample value from the local mean grade estimated
by the drift model.
The nature of the drift function is a choice imposed by the
user, and the covariance function (or variogram in the intrinsic
case) is likewise a choice specified by the user. The values of
the coefficients b and c are then calculated in the same way
as for other kriging systems – by imposing constraints on the
system that allow a unique solution to be obtained (see Chiles
and Delfiner (1999) for details).
This system is not easy to visualise. Figure 3 shows how
the DK estimator is made up of drift and probabilistic
components, and that neither directly references sampled
values. Note that while the drift estimate (and coefficients) and
probabilistic estimate (and coefficients) are shown separately,
these are actually derived simultaneously. The drift affects the
estimate throughout space, while the probabilistic coefficients
described the local influence around each data point.
One of the major advantages of the DK system is that the
drift and covariance coefficients only need be solved once,
and can then be used to make an estimate at any location.
133
M STEWART et al
The main drawback of the method is that the use of a global
neighbourhood results in a very large system of simultaneous
equations, with one equation per sample and one for each
drift function.
Expressed in matrix form, the DK system looks like this:
; Fl 0 E $ ; c E = 8 0 B
R F b z
where:
∑ is the matrix (n × n) of sample-sample covariances
F is the matrix (1 × k) of k basic drift functions
z is the matrix (1 × n) of sample data values
b is the matrix (1 × n) of covariance coefficients
c is the matrix (1 × k) of drift coefficients
An advantage of DK over OK stems from the fact that it
is computationally more efficient. Because the weights and
coefficients are calculated directly from the data, they only
need to be calculated once. The calculation of the estimate at
any point can then be done very rapidly.
Radial basis functions
The RBF is a family of mathematical techniques that has
been applied to many spatial interpolation problems, and it
underlies most of the ‘implicit modelling’ algorithms in use
today. It is based on a somewhat different starting premise to
the theory of regionalised variables on which kriging rests –
instead of considering the target variable to be a realisation of
a random function with a defined structure, the RBF is based
on interpolation of a predefined function from mathematical
criteria such as minimisation of curvature. In practice, this
difference is semantic only, because traditional kriging
also uses determined functions, except these are fitted to
experimental data and have been chosen to suit the modelling
of the data. Mathematically, there is an equivalence between
DK and modelling with RBFs, and it is also possible to
choose the RBF function by fitting to the experimental data.
In fact, because variograms such as the spherical are positive
definite (Chiles and Delfiner, 1999, p 59), they are suitable to
use as RBFs.
The interpolant for an RBF has a very similar form to
the general expression of kriging – the target variable is
FIG 4 – Shape of common radial basis functions compared to common variogram functions.
134 NINTH INTERNATIONAL MINING GEOLOGY CONFERENCE / ADELAIDE, SA, 18–20 AUGUST 2014
considered to be composed of a drift term and a term that
is a weighted average of function values dependent on data
locations.
K
s (x) = / ~i z^ x - xi h + / ck qk (x)
i k
where:
xi are the data locations over which the interpolation is to
be constructed
𝜔i are RBF coefficients (weights)
z k (x) is a spatial distance function (the RBF – from which the
method takes its name)
The term on the right refers to the set of K drift functions
(qk(x)) each having a coefficient (ck) applied globally across all
data.
In the same way as for DK, conditions are imposed that make
the system solvable. In this case, the conditions are that: the
product of RBF coefficients and drift function coefficients at
each data point should sum to zero across all data points, and
the function should return the value of the data at a data point
(see Cowan et al (2001) for details and Chiles and Delfiner
(1999) for the parallel example of DK). These conditions allow
the system to be expressed as a set of linear equations. This is
shown in matrix form as follows:
; Fl 0 E $ 8 c B = 8 0 B
U F ~ s
where:
Φ is the matrix (n × n) of basis function values between
all sample locations
F is the matrix (1 × k) of k basic drift functions
s is the matrix (1 × n) of sample data values
𝜔 is the matrix (1 n) of covariance coefficients
c is the matrix (1 × k) of drift coefficients
Apart from the use of different notation, the only difference
between these two formulations is that DK uses a covariance
(or variogram) function to describe the spatial correlations
 GRADE ESTIMATION FROM RADIAL BASIS FUNCTIONS – HOW DOES IT COMPARE WITH CONVENTIONAL GEOSTATISTICAL ESTIMATION?
between sample values, while the RBF uses an alternative
spatial function.
In practice, the spatial function of an RBF performs an
identical role to the variogram in kriging, and the decision
about the appropriate spatial function to apply to RBF
modelling has a similar impact on the modelled output as the
choice of variogram model does to kriging. Some knowledge
about the nature of the underlying spatial basis functions
available, and how these influence the character of the
estimate, is thus useful. It is also possible to use traditional
variograms, such as the spherical, in the RBF formulation.
Available radial basis functions
There are a wide family of RBFs that may be drawn on
(Moroney, 2006). However, as with kriging, it is important that
the RBF chosen matches the observed spatial characteristics of
the variable being interpolated. The variogram employed most
often in kriging of grade variables is the spherical variogram.
This is characterised by near-linear behaviour near the origin,
which then rapidly flattens off to a constant sill value at a
defined range, and takes the value of the sill for all distances
greater than the range. It is worth noting that this function is
derived from auto-correlation of a sphere, and is the simplest
mathematical function that gives a finite range, linear
behaviour at the origin and positiveness. The exponential
variogram has a similar shape, although it is steeper near the
origin and only approaches the sill asymptotically.
There are a number of basis functions that asymptotically
approach a sill value, but the majority of these also have a
smooth (ie flat) form near the origin (for example inverse
multiquadric and Gaussian). The continuous behaviour
implied near origin is not typical of grade variables, and the
standard spherical was observed to produce unrealistic grade
shells due to artefacts when the samples being used to create
an estimate changed abruptly when at a distance near the
range. Consequently, a new basis function (the spheroidal
function) was created by developers at ARANZ Geo (the
makers of Leapfrog software) that combines linear behaviour
near the origin and asymptotic behaviour away from the data
(Figure 4). The formula for the spheroidal function is given in
Appendix 1.
Linear variograms are suitable for modelling contact
surfaces but should be avoided for modelling grades.
COMPARISON OF RADIAL BASIS FUNCTIONS
AND KRIGING
As shown previously, the RBF used in implicit modelling
is mathematically equivalent to DK. However, DK is rarely
used in practice because the traditional solution of the full DK
system is intractable for data sets larger than a few hundred
points. In practice, the most commonly applied kriging
approach is OK, which has gained wide acceptance for
resource estimation in the resource industry. Understanding
the difference between estimation by OK and estimation by
RBF is equivalent to understanding the difference between
OK and DK. The similarities and differences between OK, DK
and RBFs are summarised in Table 1.
The similarities and differences are best illustrated visually.
A conditional simulation on a 300 × 300 × 10 m grid was
created, and vertical columns of nodes were extracted to
emulate artificial drill hole patterns. Two different drill
patterns were chosen: a regular grid on a 10 × 10 m pattern
(emulating a grade control pattern) and a grid on regular 20 m
northings with random selection on the easting axis. These
pseudo-drill patterns were then used to estimate grades back
NINTH INTERNATIONAL MINING GEOLOGY CONFERENCE / ADELAIDE, SA, 18–20 AUGUST 2014
into the original grid. The extracted data patterns used are
illustrated in Figure 5.
All estimation was carried out in three dimensions, but
for display purposes the input data and output estimates
are shown in two dimensions on the mid plane. Figure 6
compares the OK and RBF estimates based on regular
10 × 10 m data, while Figure 7 is the equivalent comparison
based on irregular data. The underlying distribution that
the pseudo-drill hole data is extracted from is a negatively
skewed distribution, which approximates a typical low-grade
iron ore deposit. The user-specified parameters of the two
interpolants are compared in Table 2.
DISCUSSION
Examination of the OK and RBF estimates shows that,
within the field of data (ie inside the black boxes shown
in Figures 6 and 7), the estimates by the two methods are
essentially indistinguishable. The correlation between the
two interpolants is very high (0.988 and 0.980) and both
are similarly different when compared to the ‘truth’. It is
impossible to say which interpolation method produces a
superior result as both are similarly wrong. In this situation, if
the OK estimate is considered to be ‘fit for purpose’, then the
RBF estimate is likewise.
Kriging is normally only ever visualised as block estimates
or as grade shells constructed from block estimates. But of
course, any point in space may be determined by kriging
so it can be used as an interpolant. In the aforementioned
plots, kriging was carried out at all the point locations
of the underlying simulation mesh. This reveals that the
(nearly) continuous OK interpolant is very similar to the
RBF interpolant when within a dense data field such as a
grade control pattern. It also shows the discontinuities that
are present in OK interpolation caused by use of a local
neighbourhood. This discontinuity is particularly marked in
the area of extrapolation, where sudden jumps in interpolated
grade are caused by samples passing in/out of the search.
These discontinuities are reflected as unrealistic artefacts
when grade shells are constructed using traditional kriging.
Selection of drift model
The choice of drift model imposed in implicit modelling has a
large impact on the interpolant (Figure 8). Four common drift
models are employed (in increasing order of complexity):
none, constant, linear and quadratic. None of these are
directly equivalent to OK with a local neighbourhood. Using
no drift model is roughly equivalent to SK with a zero mean
– this model should never be used for interpolation of grade
variables.
A constant drift model is roughly equivalent to SK with a
constant mean equal to the declustered average of the data.
Linear and quadratic drift models should be used with caution
as they may be dangerous in extrapolation. Note that, within
the limits of data, the estimates are very similar with constant,
linear and quadratic drifts. Constant drift is the safest option
to use for interpolation of grade variables.
Point versus block estimation
In mining, estimates are usually made of blocks rather than
points. The usual reason given for this is that block estimates
take account of the change in support between the available
information (grades measured on drill sample-sized volumes)
and what we are trying to predict (the grade of truck or
larger-sized volumes). The volume-variance effect dictates
that the variability of block estimates should be lower than
the variability of data.
135
M STEWART et al

TABLE 1
Comparison of ordinary kriging, dual kriging and radial basis function interpolators.

Factor Ordinary kriging Dual kriging Radial basis function

General description Grade at target point is calculated as the
linear weighted average of samples in a local
neighbourhood. Adoption of a variogram model
for the domain allows the ‘estimation error’ to be samples. A unique solution is found that minimises
expressed in terms of the weights (unknown) and the estimation error. Once the drift and weighting
covariances (specified by the model). By a process
of minimisation under constraints, a unique set of
weights are derived that minimise the estimation
error. This process is repeated for every target point.
Assumption of Quasi-stationarity should be satisfied. This is
stationarity a weakening of the intrinsic hypothesis that
allows some variation in local mean (drift) to
be accommodated. In practice, drift should
be insignificant at a scale less than the search
neighbourhood, and the variogram should apply
across the entire domain.
Spatial model Variogram (intrinsic case).
User decisions Definition of domain.
Choice of variogram model.
Definition of search neighbourhood (which is
intimately tied to choice of variogram).
Output Grade estimate of a point (or volume).
Kriging variance (and other derivative measures of
estimation confidence).
Behaviour in The assumption is that data in the search
extrapolation neighbourhood is centred on the local mean. In
practice, this means that samples on the margins
are given the highest weight when estimation
grades outside the data field and the marginal
grades are projected outwards.
Based on a chosen drift function and variogram
model, a set of global drift coefficients and sample
weighting coefficients are calculated across all
coefficients have been solved, grade can be
interpolated at any location.
The method accounts for non-stationarity via
simple drift functions. The simpler the observed
trend, the more robustly the drift model will
describe variation in the local mean. The residual
then left after subtraction of a simple drift function
should satisfy the intrinsic hypothesis (ie as
outlined for ordinary kriging).
Variogram (intrinsic case) that incorporates drift.
Definition of domain.
Choice of variogram model.
Form of drift function(s).
Choice of variogram model.
Grade estimate of a point (or volume).
Behaviour in extrapolation depends on the nature
of the drift models adopted and the variogram
range (range of influence of samples). Grade
estimation is a combination of a drift term and a
stochastic term. Far from data, the estimate will be
dominated by the drift term – this may
become negative.
The process is fundamentally the same as for dual
kriging (DK), except that spatial correlations are
provided by a radial basis function (RBF) rather
than a variogram. Additionally, mathematical
simplifications have been developed, which allow
rapid solution of the RBF for very large datasets.
No assumption of stationarity is required. But as
for kriging, the higher the degree of stationarity
present (and the simpler the drift) the more
reliable interpolation will be.
Symmetric distance function. Must be real valued
on [0,∞].
Definition of domain.
Form of drift function(s).
Choice of radial basis function (and anisotropy).
Grade estimate of a point (or volume)
(no metric of estimation confidence).
Same as for DK. Common drift functions are:
• none: away from data interpolant reverts to zero
• constant: away from data interpolant reverts to
mean (equivalent to simple kriging)
• linear: interpolant reverts to drift function that is
simple linear function of coordinates
• quadratic: interpolant reverts to quadratic drift
function (use with caution).

FIG 5 – Regular and semi-regular drill patterns.

Because the estimates are linear functions of the data, a
block estimate can be created from the average of a point
estimator within a volume. Strictly speaking, it is the integral
of the function, but is calculated in practice by evaluating the
average over a discrete number of points within the block
(discretisation).
In OK, block estimation is usually achieved in one of two
ways: by the averaging of point estimations on a fine mesh into
a larger mesh, or, more commonly, by averaging the spatial
function between data points and the block and using these
averaged values in the kriging equations. Mathematically,
these processes are equivalent, but the latter is more common
due to its greater computational speed.
In the case of an RBF, it is usually performed by calculating
the integral of the function over the volume as the
computational efficiency of the RBF renders this feasible, and

136 NINTH INTERNATIONAL MINING GEOLOGY CONFERENCE / ADELAIDE, SA, 18–20 AUGUST 2014
 GRADE ESTIMATION FROM RADIAL BASIS FUNCTIONS – HOW DOES IT COMPARE WITH CONVENTIONAL GEOSTATISTICAL ESTIMATION?

FIG 6 – Comparison of ordinary kriging and radial basis function estimates based on regular 10 × 10 m data extracted from a dense simulated truth. The scatter
plots on the right only compare points within the area informed by drilling (black square). Note the difference of behaviour of the interpolant in extrapolation.

FIG 7 – Comparison of ordinary kriging and radial basis function estimates based on irregular data (20 m N × random E ) extracted from a dense simulated truth.
it is more convenient to incorporate partial blocks that occur
TABLE 2 when domains subdivide blocks. In practice, like in OK, the
Comparison of ordinary kriging and radial basis function integration is done empirically on a ‘discretisation’ mesh; that
interpolation parameters (note that although ranges are quite is, the function is evaluated at n regularly spaced nodes and
different, the resultant functions are very similar in shape). the n values averaged.
An important observation can be made here. If the gradient
Oridnary kriging Radial basis function of the interpolant function is smooth across a block, then
estimation parameters interpolant evaluation of the function at the centre point is equivalent to
Neighbourhood Search 250 × 250 × 10 m No clipping applied integrating over the volume. This is most easily illustrated in
(anisotropy 10 × 10 × 1 m) one dimension (Figure 9), but the idea can easily be extended
Maximum samples 12 to three dimensions.
No clipping applied In many instances, evaluation of an interpolant at the centre
Variogram C0: 0.9 Nugget: 0.72 point of a block is practically equivalent to averaging across
C1: spherical sill 1.0 Spheroidal sill: 3.0, no rotation the full block, particularly with dense data like in a grade
Ranges 65, 45, 6.5, no rotation Range 20 m control patter. Put another way, point kriging of a block
C2: spherical sill 1.9 Anisotropy: 1, 0.69, 0.1 centroid may produce a very similar result to block kriging,
Ranges 120, 120, 25, no rotation and evaluation of an RBF at a block centroid may likewise
be very similar to evaluating on a finer mesh and averaging.
Drift model Constant drift Simple testing can confirm whether this is the case.

NINTH INTERNATIONAL MINING GEOLOGY CONFERENCE / ADELAIDE, SA, 18–20 AUGUST 2014 137
M STEWART et al
FIG 8 – Comparison of drift models applied to the irregular sampling case.
FIG 9 – Illustration of the effect that the gradient of interpolant has on averaging versus centrepoint.
One of the criticisms sometimes levelled at RBF grade
interpolants is that if the interpolant is rendered into grade
shells, the wireframe meshes created from the underlying
interpolant produce ‘non-geological’ looking shapes with
unrealistically smoothed curves (like the shapes from early
digital animations). When the interpolants are compared at
point scale, it should be obvious that the continuous smooth
curves of the RBF are no more or less ‘realistic’ than the more
discontinuous shapes produced by neighbourhood effects
in OK or by the flat triangles and angular vertices present in
manually digitised wireframes.
CONCLUSIONS
Implicit models are now widely used for the modelling of
surface geometry from categorical logging data, and for
the modelling of ‘grade iso-surfaces’ based on continuous
grade variables. One of the underlying engines of implicit
modelling is the RBF. The mathematics of the RBF is
equivalent to DK, in which a unique solution for both drift
coefficients and covariance weightings are found directly
from the data. Once derived, the RBF may be solved for any
unsampled point or averaged over any volume to provide an
estimate of grade.
Comparison interpolations developed in this paper show
that in a situation such as grade control where the data spacing
is less than the range of the variogram, the results of estimation
using RBF interpolation are virtually indistinguishable from
OK of grades.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work originated in a project carried out for BHP Billiton. The
authors thank Colin Carey at BHP Billiton and Scott Jackson of
QG Pty Ltd for thoughtful reviews of the manuscript. Valuable
comments were received from two anonymous reviewers.
138 NINTH INTERNATIONAL MINING GEOLOGY CONFERENCE / ADELAIDE, SA, 18–20 AUGUST 2014
Isatis software was used to generate the underlying
simulation and OK estimates. RBF interpolations were created
using Leapfrog Mining software.
REFERENCES
Armstrong, M, 1984. Problems of universal kriging, Mathematical
Geology, 16:1.
Carr, J C, Beatson, R K, Cherrie, J B, Mitchell, T J, Fright, W R,
McCallum, B C and Evans, T R, 2001. Reconstruction and
representation of 3D objects with radial basis functions, ACM
SIGGRAPH 2001, 12–17 August 2001, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Chiles, J P and Delfiner, P, 1999. Geostatistics: Modelling Spatial
Uncertainty, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics, 695 p (Wiley:
New York).
Costa, J-P, Pronzato, L and Thierry, E, 1999. A comparison between
kriging and radial basis function networks for non-linear
prediction (eds: A Enis Çetin, L Akarun, A Ertüzün, M N Gurcan
and Y Yardimci), in Proceedings IEEE-EURASIP Workshop
on Nonlinear Signal and Image Processing (NSIP’99) (Bogaziçi
University Printhouse).
Cowan, E J, Beatson, R K, Ross, H J, Fright, W R, McLennan, T J,
Evans, T R, Carr, J C, Lane, R G, Bright, D V, Gillman, A J,
Oshurst, P A and Titley, M, 2003. Practical implicit geological
modelling, in Proceedings Fifth International Mining Geology
Conference (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy:
Melbourne).
Galli, A, Murillo, E and Thomann, J, 1984. Dual kriging – its properties
and its uses in direct contouring, Geostatistics for Natural Resources
Characterisation (eds: G Verly, M David, A G Journel and
A Marechal) pp 621–634.
Moroney, T, 2006. An investigation of a finite volume method
incorporating radial basis functions for simulating nonlinear
transport, PhD thesis, Queensland University of Technology.
 GRADE ESTIMATION FROM RADIAL BASIS FUNCTIONS – HOW DOES IT COMPARE WITH CONVENTIONAL GEOSTATISTICAL ESTIMATION?

APPENDIX 1 In Leapfrog software, the expression is instead presented in

the form of a variogram, rising to a sill. The interface shows a
The expression for the spheroidal basis function is:
variogram function controlled by the nugget (N), sill (S) and
range (R) parameters. This variogram is given by:
1- r m
r1 c
c 1+m m+1
c ^ r h = ^S - N h ^1 - H ^ tmR, m, r hh + N
H (c, m, r) =
r 2 -m / 2 r 2= c
` +`c j j
1 m + 1 -1 - m/ 2 1
`
2 m+2
j m+1
where:
where: ρm is a scaling constant that depends on the order of the
r is range spheroidal function (m)
m is the order of the spheroidal function (odd valued The order is also called the alpha parameter in the products
numbers from three to nine) and alters the shape of the spheroidal function.
c is the distance at which the value of the function is The expression for the spheroidal function has not been
being calculated formally published. Interested readers may contact author
This is the formula used in the RBF calculations. It is a Richard Lane for further details.
decreasing function asymptotically approaching zero.

NINTH INTERNATIONAL MINING GEOLOGY CONFERENCE / ADELAIDE, SA, 18–20 AUGUST 2014 139