Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Paper 2 of this three‐part series uses synthetic data to investigate the properties of the adjoint state maximum likelihood cross‐validation (ASMLCV) method presented in paper 1 (Samper and Neuman, this issue (a)). More than 40 synthetic experiments are performed to compare various conjugate gradient algorithms; investigate the manner in which computer time varies with ASMLCV parameters; study the effect of sample size and choice of kriging points on ASMLCV estimates ; evaluate the ability of various model structure identification criteria to help select the most appropriate semivariogram model among given alternatives; study the conditions required for parameter identifiability, uniqueness, and stability; quantify the statistics of cross‐validation errors; test hypotheses concerning the distribution and autocorrelation of these errors; and illustrate the computation of approximate quality indicators for ASMLCV parameter estimates.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Samper et al. (1989) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: