MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403794510 · doi:10.1093/gji/ggae386

Deep learning phase pickers: how well can existing models detect hydraulic-fracturing induced microseismicity from a borehole array?

2024· article· en· W4403794510 on OpenAlexfundno aff
C. S. Lim, Sacha Lapins, Margarita Segou, Maximilian J. Werner

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Journal International · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilBiogeoscience Institute, University of CalgaryNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsHydraulic fracturingBoreholeGeologyPetroleum engineeringSeismologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY Deep learning (DL) phase picking models have proven effective in processing large volumes of seismic data, including successfully detecting earthquakes missed by other standard detection methods. Despite their success, the applicability of existing extensively trained DL models to high-frequency borehole data sets is currently unclear. In this study, we compare four established models [Generalized Seismic Phase Detection (GPD), U-GPD, PhaseNet and EQTransformer] trained on regional earthquakes recorded at surface stations (100 Hz) in terms of their picking performance on high-frequency borehole data (2000 Hz) from the Preston New Road (PNR) unconventional shale gas site, in the United Kingdom (UK). The PNR-1z data set, which we use as a benchmark, consists of continuously recorded waveforms containing over 38 000 seismic events previously catalogued, ranging in magnitudes from −2.8 to 1.1. Remarkably, all four DL models can detect induced seismicity in high-frequency borehole data and two might satisfy the monitoring requirements of some users without any modifications. In particular, PhaseNet and U-GPD demonstrate exceptional recall rates of 95 and 76.6 per cent, respectively, and detect a substantial number of new events (over 15 800 and 8300 events, respectively). PhaseNet’s success might be attributed to its exposure to more extensive and diverse instrument data set during training, as well as its relatively small model size, which might mitigate overfitting to its training set. U-GPD outperforms PhaseNet during periods of high seismic rates due to its smaller window size (400 samples compared to PhaseNet’s 3000-sample window). These models start missing events below $M_w$ −0.5, suggesting that the models could benefit from additional training with microseismic data-sets. Nonetheless, PhaseNet may satisfy some users’ monitoring requirements without further modification, detecting over 52 000 events at PNR. This suggests that DL models can provide efficient solutions to the big data challenge of downhole monitoring of hydraulic-fracturing induced seismicity as well as improved risk mitigation strategies at unconventional exploration sites.

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)0.003
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.235 · 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
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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Journal InternationalSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207