Finding patterns in subsurface using Bayesian machine learning approach

Abstract Stochastic simulation approaches and uncertainty quantification are usually adopted for gaining insight into variability in soil stratigraphy configurations. Previous investigations at geotechnical site characterization and interpretation can be broadly categorized into geostatistics- and process-based methods. On the other hand, modern site exploration techniques provide high-quality, dense datasets in physical spaces with high resolution, either directly from sensors (for example, cone penetration testing data) or indirectly from geophysical inversion (such as seismic inversion, electromagnetic induction inversion, and ground penetrating radar). In this work, anisotropy and heterogeneity are considered as possible patterns that inherently exist in the observations, and these are inferred and described in a Bayesian manner. To this end, a Bayesian machine learning approach is employed to extract these patterns from the original or interpreted data. The patterns are divided into two parts: spatial and statistical patterns. These patterns are considered as the “hidden link” among multiple spatial datasets. The proposed modeling method is demonstrated using a real-world, one-dimensional example as well as two two-dimensional numerical examples. It is revealed that the proposed clustering approach is a promising tool for subsurface modeling and pattern extraction.

[1]  Viacheslav I. Adamchuk,et al.  On-the-go soil sensors for precision agriculture , 2004 .

[2]  Lee H. MacDonald,et al.  Spatial Variability of Measured Soil Properties across Site-Specific Management Zones , 2005 .

[3]  J. Besag On the Statistical Analysis of Dirty Pictures , 1986 .

[4]  Prabir Kumar Basudhar,et al.  Utilization of self-organizing map and fuzzy clustering for site characterization using piezocone data , 2009 .

[5]  Kok-Kwang Phoon,et al.  Identification of statistically homogeneous soil layers using modified Bartlett statistics , 2003 .

[6]  Philippe Renard,et al.  Truncated Plurigaussian Simulations to Characterize Aquifer Heterogeneity , 2009, Ground water.

[7]  Geoffrey J. McLachlan,et al.  Finite Mixture Models , 2019, Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application.

[8]  Paul W. Mayne,et al.  Objective Site Characterization Using Clustering of Piezocone Data , 2002 .

[9]  Robert Y. Liang,et al.  A hidden Markov random field model based approach for probabilistic site characterization using multiple cone penetration test data , 2018 .

[10]  Nir Friedman,et al.  Probabilistic Graphical Models - Principles and Techniques , 2009 .

[11]  Dian-Qing Li,et al.  Bayesian identification of soil stratigraphy based on soil behaviour type index , 2019, Canadian Geotechnical Journal.

[12]  G. McLachlan,et al.  The EM algorithm and extensions , 1996 .

[13]  Thi Minh Hue Le,et al.  Cone penetration data classification with Bayesian Mixture Analysis , 2016 .

[14]  Yu Wang,et al.  Probabilistic identification of underground soil stratification using cone penetration tests , 2013 .

[15]  Z. Zhang,et al.  Statistical to Fuzzy Approach toward CPT Soil Classification , 2000 .

[16]  Florence Forbes,et al.  Hidden Markov Random Field Model Selection Criteria Based on Mean Field-Like Approximations , 2003, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[17]  Stephen M. Smith,et al.  Segmentation of brain MR images through a hidden Markov random field model and the expectation-maximization algorithm , 2001, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[18]  Jens Christian Refsgaard,et al.  Challenges in conditioning a stochastic geological model of a heterogeneous glacial aquifer to a comprehensive soft data set , 2013 .

[19]  K. Phoon,et al.  Characterization of Geotechnical Variability , 1999 .

[20]  Florence Tupin,et al.  Unsupervised classification of radar images using hidden Markov chains and hidden Markov random fields , 2003, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..

[21]  Adrian E. Raftery,et al.  How Many Clusters? Which Clustering Method? Answers Via Model-Based Cluster Analysis , 1998, Comput. J..

[22]  Gilles Celeux,et al.  EM procedures using mean field-like approximations for Markov model-based image segmentation , 2003, Pattern Recognit..

[23]  E. Poeter,et al.  Field example of data fusion in site characterization , 1995 .

[24]  Xiao-Li Meng,et al.  Modeling covariance matrices in terms of standard deviations and correlations, with application to shrinkage , 2000 .

[25]  Jean-Louis Briaud,et al.  The National Geotechnical Experimentation Sites at Texas A&M University: Clay and Sand, A Summary , 2000 .

[26]  P. Robertson Interpretation of cone penetration tests — a unified approach , 2009 .

[27]  J. Besag Spatial Interaction and the Statistical Analysis of Lattice Systems , 1974 .

[28]  Yu Wang,et al.  Bayesian Approach for Probabilistic Site Characterization Using Cone Penetration Tests , 2013 .

[29]  Paul W. Mayne,et al.  Stratigraphic delineation by three-dimensional clustering of piezocone data , 2007 .

[30]  Paul W. Mayne,et al.  Cone Penetration Testing , 2007 .

[31]  L. Hu,et al.  Multiple-Point Simulations Constrained by Continuous Auxiliary Data , 2008 .

[32]  Y. Rubin,et al.  A Bayesian approach for inverse modeling, data assimilation, and conditional simulation of spatial random fields , 2010 .

[33]  Adrian E. Raftery,et al.  Model-Based Clustering, Discriminant Analysis, and Density Estimation , 2002 .

[34]  Donald Geman,et al.  Stochastic Relaxation, Gibbs Distributions, and the Bayesian Restoration of Images , 1984, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[35]  Johan Alexander Huisman,et al.  Measuring soil water content with ground penetrating radar , 2003 .

[36]  Michel Dekking,et al.  A Markov Chain Model for Subsurface Characterization: Theory and Applications , 2001 .

[37]  D. Corwin,et al.  Apparent soil electrical conductivity measurements in agriculture , 2005 .

[38]  Hui Wang,et al.  A Segmentation Approach for Stochastic Geological Modeling Using Hidden Markov Random Fields , 2017, Mathematical Geosciences.

[39]  Sergei Vassilvitskii,et al.  k-means++: the advantages of careful seeding , 2007, SODA '07.

[40]  Jianye Ching,et al.  Cone penetration test (CPT)-based stratigraphic profiling using the wavelet transform modulus maxima method , 2015 .