Seismic facies analysis based on deep convolutional embedded clustering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Seismic facies classification takes a two-step approach: attribute extraction and seismic facies analysis by using clustering algorithms, sequentially. In general, it is clear that the choice of feature extraction is critical for successful seismic facies analysis. However, the choice of features is customarily determined by the seismic interpreters, and so the clustering result is affected by the difference in the seismic interpreters’ experience levels. It becomes challenging to extract features and identify seismic facies simultaneously. We have introduced deep convolutional embedded clustering (DCEC), which aims to simultaneously learn feature representations and cluster assignments by using deep neural networks. Our method learns mapping from the data space to a lower dimensional feature space in which it iteratively optimizes a clustering objective by building a specific loss function. We apply the method to the Modified National Institute of Standards and Technology (MNIST) data, geophysical model data, and field seismic data. In the MNIST data, the DCEC method shows better latent space of clustering results than traditional clustering methods. In the geophysical model data, the accuracy of waveform classification based on DCEC method is higher than traditional clustering methods. The results from the seismic data demonstrate that selection of input data and method has an important effect on the clustering result. In addition, our method is helpful for improving the resolution of seismic facies edges and offers the richer depositional information than the traditional clustering methods.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".