Engineering topics
Publications and source records attributed to Lin, Youzuo.
An analyst review created a labelled catalog of pseudo-ground truth data with almost 9,000 examples spanning four categories: transient signals, persistent signals, signals from moving sources, and noise.
Abstract Accurate earthquake location and magnitude estimation play critical roles in seismology. Recent deep learning frameworks have produced encouraging results on various seismological tasks (e.g., earthquake detection, phase picking, seismic classification, and earthquake early warning). Many existing machine learning earthquake location methods utilize waveform information from a single station. However, multiple stations contain more complete information for earthquake source characterization. Inspired by recent successes in applying graph neural networks (GNNs) in graph‐structured data, we develop a Spatiotemporal Graph Neural Network (STGNN) for estimating earthquake locations and magnitudes. Our graph neural network leverages geographical and waveform information from multiple stations to construct graphs automatically and dynamically by adaptive message passing based on graphs' edges. Using a recent graph neural network and a fully convolutional neural network as baselines, we apply STGNN to earthquakes recorded by the Southern California Seismic Network from 2000 to 2019 and earthquakes collected in Oklahoma from 2014 to 2015. STGNN yields more accurate earthquake locations than those obtained by the baseline models and performs comparably in terms of depth and magnitude prediction, though the ability to predict depth and magnitude remains weak for all tested models. Our work demonstrates the potential of using GNNs and multiple stations for better automatic estimation of earthquake epicenters.
Here we develop a deep learning-based infrasonic detection and categorization methodology that uses convolutional neural networks with self-attention layers to identify stationary and non-stationary signals in infrasound array processing results. Using features extracted from the coherence and direction-of-arrival information from beamforming at different infrasound arrays, our model more reliably detects signals compared with raw waveform data. Using three infrasound stations maintained as part of the International Monitoring System, we construct an analyst-reviewed data set for model training and evaluation. We construct models using a 4-category framework, a generalized noise vs non-noise detection scheme, and a signal-of-interest (SOI) categorization framework that merges short duration stationary and non-stationary categories into a single SOI category. We evaluate these models using a combination of k-fold cross-validation, comparison with an existing “state-of-the-art” detector, and a transportability analysis. Although results are mixed in distinguishing stationary and non-stationary short duration signals, f-scores for the noise vs non-noise and SOI analyses are consistently above 0.96, implying that deep learning-based infrasonic categorization is a highly accurate means of identifying signals-of-interest in infrasonic data records.
Abstract not provided.
This synthetic multi-scale and multi-physics data set was produced in collaboration with teams at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Colorado School of Mines through the Science-informed Machine Learning for Accelerating Real-Time Decisions in Subsurface Applications (SMART) Initiative. Data are associated with the following publication: Alumbaugh, D., Gasperikova, E., Crandall, D., Commer, M., Feng, S., Harbert, W., Li, Y., Lin, Y., and Samarasinghe, S., “The Kimberlina Synthetic Geophysical Model and Data Set for CO2 Monitoring Investigations”, The Geoscience Data Journal, 2023, DOI: 10.1002/gdj3.191. The dataset uses the Kimberlina 1.2 CO2 reservoir flow model simulations based on a hypothetical CO2 storage site in California (Birkholzer et al., 2011; Wainwright et al., 2013). Geophysical properties models (P- and S-wave seismic velocities, saturated density, and electrical resistivity) were produced with an approach similar to that of Yang et al. (2019) and Gasperikova et al. (2022) for 100 Kimberlina 1.2 reservoir models. Links to individual resources are provided below: [CO2 Saturation Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-co2-saturation-models); Resistivity Models – [part 1](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-1), [part 2](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-2), and [part 3](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-3); [Vp Velocity Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-vp-velocity-models); [Vs Velocity Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-vs-velocity-models); [Density Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-density-models). The 3D distributions of geophysical properties for the 33 time stamps of the SIM001 model were used to generate synthetic seismic, gravity, and electromagnetic (EM) responses for 33 times between zero and 200 years. Synthetic surface seismic data were generated using 2D and 3D finite-difference codes that simulate the acoustic wave equation (Moczo et al., 2007). 2D data were simulated for six point-pressure sources along a 2D line with 10 m receiver spacing and a time spacing of 0.0005 s. 3D simulations were completed for 25 surface pressure sources using a source separation of 1 km in both the x and y directions and a time spacing of 0.001 s. Links to individual resources are provided below: [2D velocity models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-2d-velocity-models) and [2D surface seismic data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-2d-surface-seismic-data). [3D velocity models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-velocity-models), and 3D seismic data [year0](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year0), [year1](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year1), [year2](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year2), [year5](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year5), [year10](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year10), [year15](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year15), [year20](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year20), [year25](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year25), [year30](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year30), [year35](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year35), [year40](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year40), [year45](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year45), [year49](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year49), [year50](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year50), [year51](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year51), [year52](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year52), [year55](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year55), [year60](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year60), [year65](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year65), [year70](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year70), [year75](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year75), [year80](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year80), [year85](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year85), [year90](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year90), [year95](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year95), [year100](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year100), [year110](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year110), [year120](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year120), [year130](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year130), [year140](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year140), [year150](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year150), [year175](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year175), [year200](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year200). The Python scripts to read these models and data are provided [here](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-python-scripts). EM simulations used a borehole-to-surface survey configuration, with the source located near the reservoir level and receivers on the surface using the code developed by Commer and Newman (2008). Pseudo-2D data for the source at [2500 m](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-pseudo-2d-csem-data-tz2500m) and [3025 m](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-pseudo-2d-csem-data-tz3025m), used a 2D inline receiver configuration to simulate a response over 3D resistivity models. The [3D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-csem-data) contain electric fields generated by borehole sources at monitoring well locations and measured over a surface receiver grid. Vector gravity data, both on the surface and in boreholes, were simulated using a modeling code developed by Rim and Li (2015). The simulation scenarios were parallel to those used for the EM: [pseudo-2D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-gravity-data) were calculated along the same lines and within the same boreholes, and [3D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-gravity-data) were simulated over 3D models on the surface and in three monitoring wells. A series of [synthetic well logs](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-well-logs) of CO2 saturation, acoustic velocity, density, and induction resistivity in the injection well and three monitoring wells are also provided at 0, 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, and 20 years after the initiation of injection. These were constructed by combining the low-frequency trend of the geophysical models with the high-frequency variations of actual well logs collected in the Kimberlina 1 well that was drilled at the proposed site. Measurements of permeability and pore connectivity were made on cores of Vedder Sandstone, which forms the primary reservoir unit: [CT micro scans](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-ct-micro-scans-of-vedder-formation) and [Industrial CT Images](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-industrial-ct-images-vedder-formation). These measurements provide the range of scales in the otherwise synthetic data set to be as close to a real-world situation as possible. References: Birkholzer, J.T., Zhou, Q., Cortis, A. and Finsterle, S., 2011. A sensitivity study on regional pressure buildup from large-scale CO2 storage projects. Energy Procedia, 4, 4371-4378. Commer, M., and Newman, G.A., 2008. New advances in three-dimensional controlled-source electromagnetic inversion, Geophysical Journal International, 172, 513-535. Gasperikova, E., Appriou, D., Bonneville, A., Feng, Z., Huang, L., Gao, K., Yang, X., Daley, T., 2022, Sensitivity of geophysical techniques for monitoring secondary CO2 storage plumes, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control, Volume 114, 103585, ISSN 1750-5836, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2022.103585. Moczo, P., J.O. Robertsson and L. Eisner, 2007, The finite-difference time-domain method for modeling of seismic wave propagation: Advances in geophysics, 48, 421-516. Rim, H., and Y. Li, 2015, Advantages of borehole vector gravity in density imaging, Geophysics, 80, G1-G13. Wainwright, H. M.; Finsterle, S.; Zhou, Q.; Birkholzer, J. T., 2013. Modeling the Performance of Large-Scale CO2 Storage Systems: A Comparison of Different Sensitivity Analysis Methods. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 17, 189205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.05.007, DOI: 10.18141/1603331. Yang, X., Buscheck, T.A., Mansoor, K., Wang, Z., Gao, K., Huang, L., Appriou, D., and Carroll, S.A., 2019. Assessment of geophysical monitoring methods for detection of brine and CO2 leakage in drinking water aquifers, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 90, 102803, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.102803.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Multiphysics inversion exploits different types of geophysical data that often complement each other and aims to improve overall imaging resolution and reduce uncertainties in geophysical interpretation. Despite the advantages, traditional multiphysics inversion is challenging because it requires a large amount of computational time and intensive human interactions for preprocessing data and finding trade-off parameters. These issues make it nearly impossible for traditional multiphysics inversion to be applied as a real-time monitoring tool for geological carbon storage. In this paper, we present a deep learning (DL) multiphysics network for imaging CO 2 saturation in real time. The multiphysics network consists of three encoders for analysing seismic, electromagnetic and gravity data and shares one decoder for combining imaging capabilities of the different geophysical data for better predicting CO 2 saturation. The network is trained on pairs of CO 2 label models and multiphysics data so that it can directly image CO 2 saturation. Here we use the bootstrap aggregating method to enhance the imaging accuracy and estimate uncertainties associated with CO 2 saturation images. Using realistic CO 2 label models and multiphysics data derived from the Kimberlina CO 2 storage model, we evaluate the performance of the deep learning multiphysics network and compare its imaging results to those from the deep learning single-physics networks. Our modelling experiments show that the deep learning multiphysics network for seismic, electromagnetic, and gravity data not only improves the imaging accuracy but also reduces uncertainties associated with CO 2 saturation images. Our results also suggest that the deep learning multiphysics network for the non-seismic data (i.e., electromagnetic and gravity) can be used as an effective low-cost monitoring tool in between regular seismic monitoring.
VelocityGAN is a software to solve subsurface imaging problems. It leverages a generative adversarial network to model the correspondence from seismic data to subsurface velocity structures.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
InversionNet is a software to solve subsurface imaging problems. It leverages a convolutional neural network with an encoder-decoder structure to model the correspondence from seismic data to subsurface velocity structures.
Abstract not provided.
The topics included are: motivation, theory, Sleipner data test, and conclusions.
Synthetic-aperture ultrasound tomography systems and methods using scanning arrays and algorithms configured to simultaneously acquire ultrasound transmission and reflection data, and process the data for improved ultrasound tomography imaging, wherein the tomography imaging comprises total-variation regularization, or a modified total variation regularization, particularly with edge-guided or spatially variant regularization.
Deep-learning inversion has recently drawn attention in geological carbon storage research due to its potential of imaging and monitoring carbon storage in real time, significantly improving efficiency and safety of carbon storage operations. We present a deep-learning full waveform inversion method that after the neural network has been trained can image CO 2 saturation and its uncertainty in real time. Our deep-learning inversion method is based on the U-Net architecture with the neural network trained on pairs of synthetic seismic data and CO 2 saturation models. Accordingly, our training establishes a mapping relationship between seismic data and CO 2 saturation models and once fully trained directly estimates CO 2 saturation as a function of subsurface location. We further quantify uncertainties of CO 2 saturation estimates using the Monte Carlo dropout method and a bootstrap aggregating method. For this proof-of-concept study, the CO 2 training models and data are derived from the Kimberlina 1.2 model, a hypothetical 3D geological carbon storage model that is constructed based on various geological and hydrological data from the Southern San Joaquin Basin, California. We perform deep-learning inversion experiments using noise-free and noisy training and test data sets and compare the results. Our modelling experiments show that (1) the deep-learning inversion can estimate 2D distributions of CO 2 fairly well even in the presence of Gaussian random noise and (2) both CO 2 saturation imaging and uncertainty quantification can be done in real time. Our results suggest that the deep-learning inversion method can serve as a robust real-time monitoring tool for geological carbon storage and/or other time-varying reservoir/aquifer properties that result from injection, extraction, and/or other subsurface transport phenomena.
Accurate subsurface characterization is crucial for all subsurface energy exploration. Accurate characterization of uncertain subsurface properties is also critical for monitoring storage of CO 2 , estimating pathways of subsurface contaminant transport, and monitoring potential nuclear explosions for treaty verification. This research will advance our world-leading subsurface sensing capabilities that are crucial for LANL missions in energy security (geothermal energy, oil/gas resource exploration, geologic carbon storage) and nuclear security (facility monitoring, detonation detection).
A significant fraction of pathogens known to infect humans originate in non-human (zoonotic) hosts (Taylor, Latham, and Woolhouse 2001), and new and emerging pathogens continue to spill over into the human population more frequently at an alarming rate (e.g., SARS, MERS, Cholera, etc.). The recent outbreaks of Ebola virus in West Africa and the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic demonstrate the need for rapid and reliable assessments of viral phenotype information to help inform scientists and policy makers how best to control the spread of disease. Further understanding of the virus pathogenic evolutionary space and potential trajectory could guide appropriate control measures to limit the spread of a new virus throughout the local and global human population.
Deep learning and data-driven approaches have shown great potential in scientific domains. The promise of data-driven techniques relies on the availability of a large volume of high-quality training datasets. Due to the high cost of obtaining data through expensive physical experiments, instruments, and simulations, data augmentation techniques for scientific applications have emerged as a new direction for obtaining scientific data recently. However, existing data augmentation techniques originating from computer vision yield physically unacceptable data samples that are not helpful for the domain problems that we are interested in. In this article, we develop new data augmentation techniques based on convolutional neural networks. Specifically, our generative models leverage different physics knowledge (such as governing equations, observable perception, and physics phenomena) to improve the quality of the synthetic data. To validate the effectiveness of our data augmentation techniques, we apply them to solve a subsurface seismic full-waveform inversion using simulated CO 2 leakage data. Our interest is to invert for subsurface velocity models associated with very small CO 2 leakage. We validate the performance of our methods using comprehensive numerical tests. Here via comparison and analysis, we show that data-driven seismic imaging can be significantly enhanced by using our data augmentation techniques. Particularly, the imaging quality has been improved by 15% in test scenarios of general-sized leakage and 17% in small-sized leakage when using an augmented training set obtained with our techniques.
Seismic full-waveform inversion (FWI) techniques aim to find a high-resolution subsurface geophysical model provided with waveform data. Some recent effort in data-driven FWI has shown some encouraging results in obtaining 2-D velocity maps. However, due to high computational complexity and large memory consumption, the reconstruction of 3-D high-resolution velocity maps via deep networks is still a great challenge. Here, in this article, we present InversionNet3D (InvNet3D), an efficient and scalable encoder–decoder network for 3-D FWI. The proposed method employs group convolution in the encoder to establish an effective hierarchy for learning information from multiple sources while cutting down unnecessary parameters and operations at the same time. The introduction of invertible layers further reduces the memory consumption of intermediate features during training and, thus, enables the development of deeper networks with more layers and higher capacity as required by different application scenarios. Experiments on the 3-D Kimberlina dataset demonstrate that InvNet3D achieves state-of-the-art reconstruction performance with lower computational cost and lower memory footprint compared to the baseline.