MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3175039957 · doi:10.1007/s11004-021-09945-x

Three-Dimensional Structural Geological Modeling Using Graph Neural Networks

2021· article· en· W3175039957 on OpenAlexafffund
M. J. Hillier, Florian Wellmann, Boyan Brodaric, E A de Kemp, Ernst Schetselaar

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Geosciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
FundersAustralian Research CouncilNatural Resources CanadaRWTH Aachen University
KeywordsComputer scienceInterpolation (computer graphics)Polygon meshGraphArtificial neural networkTheoretical computer scienceArchitectureProcess (computing)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Three-dimensional structural geomodels are increasingly being used for a wide variety of scientific and societal purposes. Most advanced methods for generating these models are implicit approaches, but they suffer limitations in the types of interpolation constraints permitted, which can lead to poor modeling in structurally complex settings. A geometric deep learning approach, using graph neural networks, is presented in this paper as an alternative to classical implicit interpolation that is driven by a learning through training paradigm. The graph neural network approach consists of a developed architecture utilizing unstructured meshes as graphs on which coupled implicit and discrete geological unit modeling is performed, with the latter treated as a classification problem. The architecture generates three-dimensional structural models constrained by scattered point data, sampling geological units and interfaces as well as planar and linear orientations. The modeling capacity of the architecture for representing geological structures is demonstrated from its application on two diverse case studies. The benefits of the approach are (1) its ability to provide an expressive framework for incorporating interpolation constraints using loss functions and (2) its capacity to deal with both continuous and discrete properties simultaneously. Furthermore, a framework is established for future research for which additional geological constraints can be integrated into the modeling process.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations80
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical GeosciencesSame topicGeological Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207