MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292387298 · doi:10.1109/lgrs.2022.3200311

Interactive Fracture Segmentation Based on Optimum Connectivity Between Superpixels

2022· article· en· W4292387298 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ademir Marques, Alexandre X. Falcão, Graciela Racolte, Eniuce Menezes de Souza, Leonardo Bachi, Caroline Léssio Cazarin, Luiz Gonzaga, Maurício Roberto Veronez

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCODEPetrobrasConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsSegmentationComputer scienceAnnotationImage segmentationPixelArtificial intelligenceCutPath (computing)Pattern recognition (psychology)Computer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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, named <i>interactive Forest Growing</i> (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 an <i>interactive Region Growing</i> (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 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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.380
Threshold uncertainty score0.598

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing LettersSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207