MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408076682 · doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2025.105911

Fault representation in structural modelling with implicit neural representations

2025· article· en· W4408076682 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kaifeng Gao, Florian Wellmann

Bibliographic record

VenueComputers & Geosciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCommission Géologique du CanadaRWTH Aachen UniversityChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsRepresentation (politics)Computer scienceFault (geology)Artificial intelligenceGeologySeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Implicit neural representations have been demonstrated to provide a flexible and scalable framework for computer graphics and three-dimensional modelling and, consequently, have found their way also into geological modelling. These networks are feature-based and resolution-independent, making them effective for modelling geological structures from scattered interface points, units, and structural orientations. Despite the promising characteristics of existing implicit neural representation approaches, modelling faults within implicit neural representations remains a significant challenge. In this work, we present a fault feature encoding approach to represent faults in implicit neural representations, where the discontinuous information is concatenated as additional features of observation points and query points for network input. We apply this methodology first to a synthetic model to evaluate its efficacy, and subsequently to a real-world dataset from a part of the Gullfaks field in the northern North Sea. The modelling results demonstrate the method’s capacity to generate a well-defined implicit scalar field while preserving sharp transitions at fault locations. Moreover, this work mentions the advantages of the presented approach over using Boolean operations and discontinuous activation functions. Furthermore, we discuss the potential opportunity to integrate prior domain knowledge and geophysics datasets into structural modelling by embedding them as model input features or incorporating them as constraints by loss functions. • Implement fault modelling in a neural network-based structural modelling framework. • Conduct a comparative study with conventional fault modelling approaches. • Propose a framework for integrating domain knowledge into structural modelling. • Discuss methods to incorporate geophysical data into structural modelling.

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 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 score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.242 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputers & GeosciencesSame topicGeological Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207