An integrated machine learning framework with uncertainty quantification for three-dimensional lithological modeling from multi-source geophysical data and drilling data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nowadays, it is commonplace for geological surveys to integrate multi-source geophysical data and drilling data in order to construct three-dimensional (3D) lithological models. In this context, manual translation of complex geophysical data into parameters used for 3D lithological modeling is challenging. Machine learning has recently shown great potential in 3D lithological modeling. However, the performance of machine learning algorithm is influenced by the imbalance in number of categories of lithological samples. In addition, the uncertainty associated with 3D lithological modeling by machine learning has rarely been quantified. This study presents a novel integrated machine learning framework to address the imbalance issue and to quantify uncertainty in 3D lithological modeling. As its novelty, our integrated machine learning framework can subdivide total uncertainty into aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties in the 3D lithological modeling procedure by stochastic gradient Langevin boosting. Another innovation of this study is the use of Bayesian hyperparameter optimization for automatic tuning of hyperparameters of the integrated machine learning framework. The 3D lithological and uncertainty modeling case study in the Jiaojia–Sanshandao gold district of China demonstrated the superiority of our proposed integrated machine learning framework. The proposed framework has great potential in integrating multi-source geophysical and drilling data for 3D lithological and uncertainty modeling in engineering geology .
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".