A comprehensive benchmark between two filter-based multiple-point simulation algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computer graphics offer various gadgets to enhance the reconstruction of high-order statistics that are not correctly addressed by the two-point statistics approaches. Almost all the newly developed multiple-point geostatistics (MPS) algorithms, to some extent, adapt these techniques to increase the simulation accuracy and efficiency. In this work, a scrutiny comparison between our recently developed MPS algorithm, the cross-correlation-wavelet simulation (CCWSIM), and a well-known MPS algorithm, FILTERSIM, is performed. The main motivation to benchmark these two algorithms is that both exploit some digital image processing filters for feature extraction. Indeed, both algorithms compute the similarity (or dissimilarity) between data events in simulation grid and training image in the feature space. In order to compare the accuracy of the algorithms, some statistics such as facies proportion, variogram, and connectivity function are computed. The results obtained reveal an excellent agreement of the CCWSIM realizations with the training image rather than FILTERSIM. Furthermore, on average, the required simulation runtime for CCWSIM is at least 10 times less than that for FILTERSIM.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".