Interactive Fracture Segmentation Based on Optimum Connectivity Between Superpixels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oil and gas reservoirs are well studied in petroleum engineering, using seismic data to estimate fluid flow and well placement. However, seismic data cannot capture fractures due to their scale, and fractures may affect rock porosity and permeability. Consequently, rock fracture segmentation and quantification from aerial images of analogous outcrops can input essential information into those studies. This paper presents a new method, namedinteractive Forest Growing(iFG), for fracture segmentation. The image is initially segmented into superpixels, defining a superpixel graph. The user selects seed superpixels, a path-cost threshold, and fractures are delineated by growing one optimum-path tree from each seed with path costs limited to the selected threshold. iFG considerably increases efficiency while reducing human effort in fracture segmentation compared to pixel-by-pixel manual annotation. We evaluate iFG with three specialists and against aninteractive Region Growing(iRG) method using 15 images to measure bias in user interpretations, verify efficiency gain over a similar approach, and generate a dataset with consolidated annotation for future work. The experiments show that iFG reduces user interventions from 19% to 33% compared to iRG, users with more experience in fracture analysis complete segmentation 4-5 times faster, and segmentation effectiveness is independent of user experience since the average F1 scores between users uing both methods ranged from 0.966 to 0.979, allowing us to create a consolidated segmentation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".