A Large-scale Benchmark on Geological Fault Delineation Models: Domain Shift, Training Dynamics, Generalizability, Evaluation and Inferential Behavior

Machine learning has taken a critical role in seismic interpretation workflows, especially in fault delineation tasks. However, despite the recent proliferation of pretrained models and synthetic datasets, the field still lacks a systematic understanding of the generalizability limits of these models across seismic data representing a variety of geologic, acquisition and processing settings. Distributional shifts between different data sources, limitations in fine-tuning strategies and labeled data accessibility, and inconsistent evaluation protocols all represent major roadblocks in the deployment of reliable and robust models in real-world exploration settings. In this paper, we present the first large-scale benchmarking study explicitly designed to provide answers and guidelines for domain shift strategies in seismic interpretation. Our benchmark encompasses over $200$ models trained and evaluated on three heterogeneous datasets (synthetic and real data) including FaultSeg3D, CRACKS, and Thebe. We systematically assess pretraining, fine-tuning, and joint training strategies under varying degrees of domain shift. Our analysis highlights the fragility of current fine-tuning practices, the emergence of catastrophic forgetting, and the challenges of interpreting performance in a systematic manner. We establish a robust experimental baseline to provide insights into the tradeoffs inherent to current fault delineation workflows, and shed light on directions for developing more generalizable, interpretable and effective machine learning models for seismic interpretation. The insights and analyses reported provide a set of guidelines on the deployment of fault delineation models within seismic interpretation workflows.

Ophthalmic Biomarker Detection: Highlights from the IEEE Video and Image Processing Cup 2023 Student Competition

The VIP Cup offers a unique experience to undergraduates, allowing students to work together to solve challenging, real-world problems with video and image processing techniques. In this iteration of the VIP Cup, we challenged students to balance personalization and generalization when performing biomarker detection in 3D optical coherence tomography (OCT) images. Balancing personalization and generalization is an important challenge to tackle, as the variation within OCT scans of patients between visits can be minimal while the difference in manifestation of the same disease across different patients may be substantial. The domain difference between OCT scans can arise due to pathology manifestation across patients, clinical labels, and the visit along the treatment process when the scan is taken. Hence, we provided a multimodal OCT dataset to allow teams to effectively target this challenge. Overall, this competition gave undergraduates an opportunity to learn about how artificial intelligence can be a powerful tool for the medical field, as well as the unique challenges one faces when applying machine learning to biomedical data.

Are Objective Explanatory Evaluation metrics Trustworthy? An Adversarial Analysis

Explainable AI (XAI) has revolutionized the field of deep learning by empowering users to have more trust in neural network models. The field of XAI allows users to probe the inner workings of these algorithms to elucidate their decision-making processes. The rise in popularity of XAI has led to the advent of different strategies to produce explanations, all of which only occasionally agree. Thus several objective evaluation metrics have been devised to decide which of these modules give the best explanation for specific scenarios. The goal of the paper is twofold: (i) we employ the notions of necessity and sufficiency from causal literature to come up with a novel explanatory technique called SHifted Adversaries using Pixel Elimination(SHAPE) which satisfies all the theoretical and mathematical criteria of being a valid explanation, (ii) we show that SHAPE is, infact, an adversarial explanation that fools causal metrics that are employed to measure the robustness and reliability of popular importance based visual XAI methods. Our analysis shows that SHAPE outperforms popular explanatory techniques like GradCAM and GradCAM++ in these tests and is comparable to RISE, raising questions about the sanity of these metrics and the need for human involvement for an overall better evaluation.