MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124469250 · doi:10.3997/2214-4609.202011486

Toward a Semisupervised Machine Learning Application to Seismic Facies Classification

2020· article· en· W3124469250 on OpenAlexaff
Michael W. Dunham, Alison Malcolm, J. Kim Welford

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSeismology and Earthquake Studies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceFaciesMachine learningGeologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Seismic facies classification is a machine learning task that maps seismic attributes to classes. The training data for these problems are commonly governed by wells, which are characteristically sparse. Most seismic facies classification problems utilize supervised machine learning algorithms, but supervised algorithms are prone to overfitting in the presence of minimal training data. However, semisupervised algorithms are designed for problems with small training sets because they incorporate both the labelled and the unlabelled data during training. Semisupervised algorithms are largely unexplored in geoscience applications, and we explore their potential here on a study using the 2D SEAM model. We provide a workflow for performing seismic classification of this synthetic model that consists of four stages. The earlier stages synthesize the seismic data from the model and build the classes for the labelled data using unsupervised learning. A latter stage involves estimating a ground-truth facies model using machine learning where the training data amount to roughly 0.2% of the full dataset. We show that our semisupervised algorithm can capture more detail compared to a popular supervised algorithm, XGBoost, and this supports the hypothesis that semisupervised algorithms can recover better predictions than supervised methods in the context of minimal training 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.808

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismology and Earthquake StudiesFrench-language works237,207