A deep learning benchmark for first break detection from hardrock seismic reflection data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Deep learning techniques are used to tackle a variety of tasks related to seismic data processing and interpretation. Although many works have shown the benefits of deep learning, assessing the generalization capabilities of proposed methods for data acquired in different conditions and geologic environments remains challenging. This is especially true for applications in hardrock environments. The primary factors that impede the adoption of machine learning in geosciences include the lack of publicly available and labeled data sets and the use of inadequate evaluation methodologies. Because machine learning models are prone to overfit and underperform when the data used to train them are site specific, the applicability of these models on new survey data that could be considered “out-of-distribution” is rarely addressed. This is unfortunate, as evaluating predictive models in out-of-distribution settings can provide a good insight into their usefulness in real-world use cases. To tackle these issues, we develop a simple benchmarking methodology for first break picking to evaluate the transferability of deep learning models that are trained across different environments and acquisition conditions. For this, we consider a reflection seismic survey data set acquired at five distinct hardrock mining sites combined with annotations for first break picking. We train and evaluate a baseline deep learning solution based on a U-Net for future comparisons and discuss potential improvements to this approach.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".