MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198869807 · doi:10.1190/geo2020-0759.1

Data-driven edge detectors for seismic data interpretation

2021· article· en· W3198869807 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julián L. Gómez, Lucia E. Nicolosi Gelis, Danilo R. Velis

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidad Nacional de La Plata
KeywordsSobel operatorDetectorComputer scienceEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionAlgorithmEdge detectionSet (abstract data type)Data setSynthetic dataGeologyInterpretation (philosophy)Filter (signal processing)Data miningArtificial intelligenceComputer visionImage (mathematics)Image processingTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We have developed a novel method to assist in seismic interpretation. The algorithm learns data-driven edge detectors for structure enhancement when applied to time slices of 3D poststack seismic data. We obtain the operators by distilling the local and structural information retrieved from patches taken randomly from the input time slices. The filters conform to an orthogonal family that behaves as structure-aware Sobel-like edge detectors, and the user can set their size and number. The results from marine Canada and New Zealand 3D seismic data demonstrate that our algorithm allows the semblance attribute to improve the delineation of subsurface channels. This fact is further supported by testing the method with realistic synthetic 2D and 3D data sets containing channeling and meandering systems. We contrast the results with standard plain Sobel filtering, multidirectional Sobel filters of variable size, and the dip-oriented plane-wave destruction Sobel attribute. Our method gives results that are comparable or superior to those of Sobel-based approaches. In addition, the obtained filters can adapt to the geologic structures present in each time slice, which reduces the number of unwanted artifacts in the final product.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207