MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385749285 · doi:10.1190/geo2023-0149.1

Automated seismic semantic segmentation using attention U-Net

2023· article· en· W4385749285 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Haifa AlSalmi, Ahmed H. Elsheikh

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSegmentationConvolutional neural networkDeep learningResidualWorkflowFaciesArtificial intelligenceHyperparameterData setGeologyAlgorithmDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Seismic facies mapping from a 3D seismic cube is of significant value to various seismic interpretation and characterization tasks. Traditional facies mapping is based on examining sedimentary environments and stratigraphic sequences that provide distinct characteristics used for facies mapping. Given the complex nature of the task, manual facies mapping is typically time and labor consuming, and the quality of the decisions varies as a function of expertise. This complexity is further increased with the ever-increasing size of 3D seismic data sets. Deep-learning methods have indicated a promising potential to perform fast, accurate, and automated segmentation tasks. We investigate the application of machine-learning techniques, particularly state-of-the-art deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs), as a framework to perform accurate automated seismic facies pixel-wise segmentation. The workflow consists of a CNN-based U-Net architecture that adopts modern computer vision techniques. We develop three major changes to the standard U-Net to boost the performance for seismic semantic segmentation tasks: (1) using residual building blocks in the encoder, (2) using transformer-like attention gates after each residual block, and (3) using frequency spectrum data, in addition to seismic amplitude, as input to the network. We indicate that this implementation achieves higher accuracy metrics outperforming recently published state-of-the-art benchmarks. The performance of our method is validated using two 3D seismic data sets, the F3 Netherlands data set and the Penobscot data set acquired offshore Nova Scotia, Canada. Experimentation involves training on a set of samples and tuning the hyperparameters, followed by quantitative evaluation of the trained network. Our workflow produces high-quality segmentation with significantly reduced artifacts, improved edge detection, and improved lateral consistency throughout the seismic survey.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.229 · 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.

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

Citations20
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207