the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Using Internal Standards in Time-resolved X-ray Micro-computed Tomography to Quantify Grain-scale Developments in Solid State Mineral Reactions
Roberto Emanuele Rizzo
Damien Freitas
James Gilgannon
Sohan Seth
Ian B. Butler
Gina Elisabeth McGill
Florian Fusseis
Abstract. X-ray computed tomography has established itself as a crucial tool in the analysis of rock materials, providing the ability to visualise intricate 3D microstructures and capture quantitative information about internal phenomena such as structural damage, mineral reactions, and fluid-rock interactions. The efficacy of this tool, however, depends significantly on the precision of image segmentation, a process that has seen varied results across different methodologies, ranging from simple histogram thresholding to more complex machine learning and deep learning strategies. The irregularity in these segmentation outcomes raises concerns about the reproducibility of the results, a challenge that we aim to address in this work.
In our study, we employ the mass balance of a metamorphic reaction as an internal standard to verify segmentation accuracy and shed light on the advantages of deep learning approaches, particularly their capacity to efficiently process expansive datasets. Our methodology utilises deep learning to achieve accurate segmentation of time-resolved volumetric images of the gypsum dehydration reaction, a process that traditional segmentation techniques have struggled with due to poor contrast between reactants and products. We utilise a 2D U-net architecture for segmentation and introduce machine learning-obtained labelled data (specifically, from random forest classification) as an innovative solution to the limitations of training data obtained from imaging. The deep learning algorithm we developed has demonstrated remarkable resilience, consistently segmenting volume phases across all experiments. Furthermore, our trained neural network exhibits impressively short run times on a standard workstation equipped with a Graphic Processing Unit (GPU). To evaluate the precision of our workflow, we compared the theoretical and measured molar evolution of gypsum to bassanite during dehydration. The errors between the predicted and segmented volumes in all time-series experiments fell within the 2 % confidence intervals of the theoretical curves, affirming the accuracy of our methodology. We also compared the results obtained by the proposed method with standard segmentation methods and found a significant improvement in precision and accuracy of segmented volumes. This makes the segmented CT images suited for extracting quantitative data, such as variations in mineral growth rate and pore size during the reaction.
In this work, we introduce a distinctive approach by using an internal standard to validate the accuracy of a segmentation model, demonstrating its potential as a robust and reliable method for image segmentation in this field. This ability to measure the volumetric evolution during a reaction with precision paves the way for advanced modelling and verification of the physical properties of rock materials, particularly those involved in tectono-metamorphic processes. Our work underscores the promise of deep learning approaches in elevating the quality and reproducibility of research in the geosciences.
- Preprint
(24031 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Roberto Emanuele Rizzo et al.
Status: open (until 09 Nov 2023)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1819', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Sep 2023
reply
I believe the paper offers a significant contribution to scientific progress within the scope of the journal, and it will be of wide interest to the geoscience community, particularly in the field of 3D mineralogy and petrology. This paper introduces a new workflow for digital image processing, and aims to revolutionize current methodologies of XCT image processing in the field of in-situ time-evolving synchrotron XCT datasets, which are often very large in size and time-consuming to analyse due to the challenges in low contrast, noise, evolving mineral phases. I believe the proposed workflow is quite robust and valid, as the authors cross-check the accuracy of the proposed method against theoretical molar evolution of gypsum to bassanite during the reaction, and their measured values fall within 2% confidence intervals. In addition, they also provide a robust presentation and comparison with other more traditional methods of image segmentation, with and without data augmentation or machine-learning labelled ground truth data, and also provide suggestions to make the method even less time-consuming. Overall, I believe this method would be applicable in many fields and will greatly improve digital image analyses in time-evolving synchrotron XCT datasets or even standard XCT scans where mineral phases may overlap in intensity.
I would be interested in seeing how the accuracy of this workflow can be checked when there is no prior-knowledge of a reaction, or when there is no theoretical curve to check it against with. This might be the case for other geological processes, where for example different mechanisms play a role, and where the molar volumes of mineral phases are not so well known. How do the authors propose to check their workflow in those instances? It would be good to include this explanation in the discussion.
I found that the overall presentation quality could be improved as some concepts mentioned in the paper are too technical for a non – expert audience, and they need explanation.
For instance, many readers will not be familiar with terms such as “supervised deep learning”. What is a supervised deep learning method? How does it differ from an unsupervised one? The authors mentioned both concepts in the paper, yet they fail to explain what they are and how they differ. They also did not explain why they chose one rather than the other. It would be good to at least explain the difference between the 2 methods (since both are mentioned) and why the authors made that choice, so that the readers can better understand what may or may not work in other contexts where this workflow may help in the analysis.
Furthermore, when possible, terminology belonging to machine-learning should be avoided, as this journal covers a great variety of topics, and while some readers may be familiar with terms such as “(hyper)-parameters”, these may not always be clear to a non-expert reader. Why are they (hyper) parameters and not just parameters? I would suggest avoiding such technical terminology when possible, or if needed, then it needs some explanation. The authors explain what (hyper)-parameters they used, but it is not clear what (hyper)-parameters are.
Some concepts are introduced without explanation of if there is one, it is presented in different sections. I flagged in the commented text where I could: for instance, Random Forest is not cross-referenced with the section in the Appendix. I think introducing cross-referencing to these sections next to the concept would help non-expert readers (example: random forest, sec. 3.3, Appendix X).
The paper also contains some minor typos and small inaccuracies, like lack of introduction of acronyms.
Some of the figures could be improved and be bigger (not sure if it is the formatting of the generated pdf). It would be good to have an overall figure (with the grain of celestite) showing all the steps, including the post-processing cleaning up.
Overall, I think the paper is a great scientific contribution to the community. Providing minor revisions are made (specifically targeting the improvement of clarity for non-expert readers), I suggest that the paper is accepted for publication.
Roberto Emanuele Rizzo et al.
Data sets
Deep learning model Roberto Emanuele Rizzo https://doi.org/10.7488/ds/7493
Volumetric data for sample VA17 Florian Fusseis https://doi.org/10.16907/8ca0995b-d09b-46a7-945d-a996a70bf70b
Volumetric data for sample VA19 Florian Fusseis https://doi.org/10.16907/a97b5230-7a16-4fdf-92f6-1ed800e45e37
Model code and software
Scripts and data for recreating the figures Roberto Emanuele Rizzo https://doi.org/10.7488/ds/7493
Roberto Emanuele Rizzo et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
171 | 55 | 9 | 235 | 4 | 4 |
- HTML: 171
- PDF: 55
- XML: 9
- Total: 235
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1