A visual data-mining methodology for seismic facies analysis: Part 1 — Testing and comparison with other unsupervised clustering methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Seismic facies analysis aims to identify clusters (groups) of similar seismic trace shapes, where each cluster can be considered to represent variability in lithology, rock properties, and/or fluid content of the strata being imaged. Unfortunately, it is not always clear whether the seismic data has a natural clustering structure. Cluster analysis consists of a family of approaches that have significant potential for classifying seismic trace shapes into meaningful clusters. The clustering can be performed using a supervised process (assigning a pattern to a predefined cluster) or an unsupervised process (partitioning a collection of patterns into groups without predefined clusters). We evaluate and compare different unsupervised clustering algorithms (e.g., partition, hierarchical, probabilistic, and soft competitive models) for pattern recognition based entirely on the characteristics of the seismic response. From validation results on simple data sets, we demonstrate that a self-organizing maps algorithm implemented in a visual data-mining approach outperforms all other clustering algorithms for interpreting the cluster structure. We apply this approach to 2D seismic models generated using a discrete, known number of different stratigraphic geometries. The visual strategy recovers the correct number of end-member seismic facies in the model tests, showing that it is suitable for pattern recognition in highly correlated and continuous seismic data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".