3.9 Article

Probabilistic sequence alignment of stratigraphic records

期刊

PALEOCEANOGRAPHY
卷 29, 期 10, 页码 976-989

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2014PA002713

关键词

stratigraphic correlation; probabilistic sequence alignment; hidden Markov models; uncertainty quantification; oxygen isotope stratigraphy; Pleistocene age models

资金

  1. NSF-OCE [1025438]
  2. Directorate For Geosciences
  3. Division Of Ocean Sciences [1025438] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The assessment of age uncertainty in stratigraphically aligned records is a pressing need in paleoceanographic research. The alignment of ocean sediment cores is used to develop mutually consistent age models for climate proxies and is often based on the O-18 of calcite from benthic foraminifera, which records a global ice volume and deep water temperature signal. To date, O-18 alignment has been performed by manual, qualitative comparison or by deterministic algorithms. Here we present a hidden Markov model (HMM) probabilistic algorithm to find 95% confidence bands for O-18 alignment. This model considers the probability of every possible alignment based on its fit to the O-18 data and transition probabilities for sedimentation rate changes obtained from radiocarbon-based estimates for 37 cores. Uncertainty is assessed using a stochastic back trace recursion to sample alignments in exact proportion to their probability. We applied the algorithm to align 35 late Pleistocene records to a global benthic O-18 stack and found that the mean width of 95% confidence intervals varies between 3 and 23 kyr depending on the resolution and noisiness of the record's O-18 signal. Confidence bands within individual cores also vary greatly, ranging from similar to 0 to >40 kyr. These alignment uncertainty estimates will allow researchers to examine the robustness of their conclusions, including the statistical evaluation of lead-lag relationships between events observed in different cores.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据