MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401274005 · doi:10.1002/nsg.12316

A fine‐tuning workflow for automatic first‐break picking with deep learning

2024· article· en· W4401274005 on OpenAlexafffund
Amir Mardan, Martin Blouin, Gabriel Fabien‐Ouellet, Bernard Giroux, Christophe Vergniault, Jeremy Gendreau

Bibliographic record

VenueNear Surface Geophysics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueCentre de Géomatique du Québec
FundersMitacs
KeywordsOverfittingComputer scienceInitializationArtificial intelligenceWorkflowArtificial neural networkSet (abstract data type)Deep learningMachine learningUnavailabilityData miningPattern recognition (psychology)DatabaseEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract First‐break picking is an essential step in seismic data processing. For reliable results, first arrivals should be picked by an expert. This is a time‐consuming procedure and subjective to a certain degree, leading to different results for different operators. In this study, we have used a U‐Net architecture with residual blocks to perform automatic first‐break picking based on deep learning. Focusing on the effects of weight initialization on first‐break picking, we conduct this research by using the weights of a pre‐trained network that is used for object detection on the ImageNet dataset. The efficiency of the proposed method is tested on two real datasets. For both datasets, we pick manually the first breaks for less than 10 of the seismic shots. The pre‐trained network is fine‐tuned on the picked shots, and the rest of the shots are automatically picked by the neural network. It is shown that this strategy allows to reduce the size of the training set, requiring fine‐tuning with only a few picked shots per survey. Using random weights and more training epochs can lead to a lower training loss, but such a strategy leads to overfitting as the test error is higher than the one of the pre‐trained network. We also assess the possibility of using a general dataset by training a network with data from three different projects that are acquired with different equipment and at different locations. This study shows that if the general dataset is created carefully it can lead to more accurate first‐break picking; otherwise, the general dataset can decrease the accuracy. Focusing on near‐surface geophysics, we perform traveltime tomography and compare the inverted velocity models based on different first‐break picking methodologies. The results of the inversion show that the first breaks obtained by the pre‐trained network lead to a velocity model that is closer to the one obtained from the inversion of expert‐picked first breaks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNear Surface GeophysicsSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207