Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 309

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Segmentation of digital rock images using deep convolutional autoencoder networks

Karimpouli, Sadegh, Tahmasebi, Pejman·2019·Computers & Geosciences

Abstract

Abstract Segmentation is a critical step in Digital Rock Physics (DRP) as the original images are available in a gray-scale format. Conventional methods often use thresholding to delineate distinct phases and, consequently, watershed algorithm to identify the existing phases. Such methods are based on color contrast, which makes it difficult to automatically differentiate phases with similar colors and intensities. Recently, deep learning and machine learning algorithms have proposed several algorithms working with images, including Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN). Among them, convolutional autoencoder networks have produced accurate results in different applications when various images are available for the training. In this paper, thus, convolutional autoencoder algorithm is implemented to enhance segmentation of digital rock images. However, the bottleneck for applying the CNN algorithms in DRP is the limited available rock images. As an effective data augmentation method, a cross-correlation based simulation was used to increase the necessary dataset in this study. Therefore, using the originally available dataset, namely 20 images from Berea sandstone, a training seed comprising of the manually and semi-manually segmented images was used. Then, the dataset is divided into training, validation and testing groups with a fraction of 80, 10 and 10%, respectively. Next, the produced dataset is given to our stochastic image generator algorithm and 20000 realizations, along with their segmented images, are produced simultaneously. The implemented CNN algorithm was tested for two versions of basic and extended architectures. The results show that the extended network produces results with 96% of categorical accuracy using the designated images in the testing group. Finally, a qualitative comparison with the conventional multiphase segmentation (multi-thresholding) revealed that our results are more accurate and reliable even if very few rock images are available.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cageo.2019.02.003

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 34 references

Metadata

Authors
Karimpouli, S., & Tahmasebi, P.
Venue
Computers & Geosciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-05
Volume
126
Pages
142-150
ISSN
0098-3004 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2911268982
Cited by
309
References
34
FWCI
21.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Segmentation of digital rock images using deep convolutional autoencoder networks. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.cageo.2019.02.003
The paper
Karimpouli, S., & Tahmasebi, P. (2019). Segmentation of digital rock images using deep convolutional autoencoder networks. Computers & Geosciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2019.02.003

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.