MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4364375111 · doi:10.1190/geo2022-0296.1

Joint denoising and classification network: Application to microseismic event detection in hydraulic fracturing distributed acoustic sensing monitoring

2023· article· en· W4364375111 on OpenAlexaff
Shaojiang Wu, Yibo Wang, Xing Liang

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Waves and Analysis
Canadian institutionsPetro-Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicroseismNoise reductionComputer scienceNoise (video)Event (particle physics)Joint (building)Hydraulic fracturingPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceGeologyData miningSeismologyImage (mathematics)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Deep learning has been applied to microseismic event detection over the past few years. However, it is still challenging to detect microseismic events from records with low signal-to-noise ratios (S/Ns). To achieve high accuracy of event detection in a low-S/N scenario, we have developed an end-to-end network that jointly performs denoising and classification tasks (JointNet) and applied it to fiber-optic distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) microseismic data. JointNet consists of 2D convolution layers that are suitable for extracting features (such as moveout and amplitude) of the dense DAS data. Moreover, JointNet uses a joint loss, rather than any intermediate loss, to simultaneously update the coupled denoising and classification modules. With the preceding advantages, JointNet is capable of simultaneously attenuating noise and preserving fine details of events and therefore improving the accuracy of event detection. We generate synthetic events and collect real background noise from a real hydraulic fracturing project and then expand them using data augmentation methods to yield sufficient training data sets. We train and validate the JointNet using training data sets of different S/Ns and compare it with the conventional classification networks visual geometry group (VGG) and deep VGG (DVGG). The results demonstrate the effectiveness of JointNet: it consistently outperforms the VGG and DVGG in all S/N scenarios and it has a superior capability to detect events, especially in a low-S/N scenario. Finally, we apply JointNet to detect microseismic events from the real DAS data acquired during hydraulic fracturing. JointNet successfully detects all manually detected events and has a better performance than VGG and DVGG.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.527
Threshold uncertainty score0.452

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicSeismic Waves and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207