Denoising of Geochemical Data using Deep Learning–Implications for Regional Surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Regional geochemical surveys generate large amounts of data that can be used for a number of purposes such as to guide mineral exploration. Modern surveys are typically designed to permit quantification of data uncertainty through data quality metrics by using quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) methods. However, these metrics, such as data accuracy and precision, are obtained through the data generation phase. Consequently, it is unclear how residual uncertainty in geochemical data can be minimized (denoised). This is a limitation to propagating uncertainty through downstream activities, particularly through complex models, which can result from the usage of artificial intelligence-based methods. This study aims to develop a deep learning-based method to examine and quantify uncertainty contained in geochemical survey data. Specifically, we demonstrate that: (1) autoencoders can reduce or modulate geochemical data uncertainty; (2) a reduction in uncertainty is observable in the spatial domain as a decrease of the nugget; and (3) a clear data reconstruction regime of the autoencoder can be identified that is strongly associated with data denoising, as opposed to the removal of useful events in data, such as meaningful geochemical anomalies. Our method to post-hoc denoising of geochemical data using deep learning is simple, clear and consistent, with the amount of denoising guided by highly interpretable metrics and existing frameworks of scientific data quality. Consequently, variably denoised data, as well as the original data, could be fed into a single downstream workflow (e.g., mapping, general data analysis or mineral prospectivity mapping), and the differences in the outcome can be subsequently quantified to propagate data uncertainty.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".