MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319348185 · doi:10.3389/feart.2023.1096212

Machine learning-assisted processing workflow for multi-fiber DAS microseismic data

2023· article· en· W4319348185 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Yuanyuan Ma, David W. Eaton, Nadine Igonin, Chaoyi Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Earth Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Waves and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersMicroseismic Industry ConsortiumConocoPhillips
KeywordsMicroseismGeophoneWorkflowHypocenterComputer scienceConvolutional neural networkEvent (particle physics)Real-time computingDeep learningPassive seismicArtificial intelligenceGeologyData miningSeismologyInduced seismicityDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS) deployed in deviated wells has been increasingly used for microseismic monitoring. DAS can provide observations of microseismic wavefields with high spatial resolution and wide aperture, at the cost of unusually large data volumes compared with conventional downhole microseismic monitoring. To tackle this big-data challenge, we have developed key elements of a processing workflow that is assisted by machine learning techniques. We trained a convolutional neural network (CNN) for event detection and a U-Net model for both P- and S-wave arrival time picking. The workflow was applied to two multiwell DAS datasets acquired during hydraulic fracturing completions in western Canada. These datasets also include co-located 3C borehole geophone arrays that enable further comparison between catalogs from both sensor types. Compared with a traditional short-term average/long-term average (STA/LTA) method for event detection, our results indicate that the CNN method has a lower false-trigger rate and increases the event catalog size by a factor of 2.6–5.6. U-Net yields arrival-time picks with relatively small errors, high efficiency, and minimal user intervention, providing hypocenter location and focal depth that is arguably more accurate than the geophone catalog. While the proposed automated workflow requires substantial effort to build high-quality and large training datasets, it enables the use of DAS for real-time seismicity monitoring and risk management after the training stage. Although the DAS system detected fewer events than the geophone catalog and missed smaller magnitude events, our results indicate that fiber-optic sensors provide enough sensitivity to detect and locate sufficient events to characterize the treatment stages. DAS also captured induced events located at a hypocentral distance of >1 km, which are possibly indicative of reactivation of structural features.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.289
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations18
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Earth ScienceSame topicSeismic Waves and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207