Geology ReportsSearch

USGS · 70251029

Cursed? Why one does not simply add new data sets to supervised geothermal machine learning models

Abstract

Recent advances in machine learning (ML) identifying areas favorable to hydrothermal systems indicate that the resolution of feature data remains a subject of necessary improvement before ML can reliably produce better models. Herein, we consider the value of adding new features or replacing other, low-value features with new input features in existing ML pipelines. Our previous work identified stress and seismicity as having less value than the other feature types (i.e., heat flow, distance to faults, and distance to magmatic activity) for the 2008 USGS hydrothermal energy assessment; hence, a fundamental question regards if the addition of new but partially correlated features will improve resulting models for hydrothermal favorability. Therefore, we add new maps for shear strain rate and dilation strain rate to fit logistic regression and XGBoost models, resulting in new 7-feature models that are compared to the old 5-feature models. Because these new features share a degree of correlation with the original relatively uninformative stress and seismicity features, we also consider replacement of the two lower-value features with the two new features, creating new 5-feature models. Adding the new features improves the predictive skill of the new 7-feature model over that of the old 5-feature model; albeit, that improvement is not statistically significant because the new features are correlated with the old features and, consequently, the new features do not present considerable new information. However, the new 5-feature XGBoost model has a statistically significant increase in predictive skill for known positives over the old 5-feature model at p = 0.06. This improved performance is due to the lower-dimensional feature space of the former than that of the latter. In higher-dimensional feature space, relationships between features and the presence or absence of hydrothermal systems are harder to discern (i.e., the 7-feature model likely suffers from the “curse of dimensionality”).

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Stanley Paul Mordensky, Erick R. Burns, John Lipor, Jacob DeAngelo. 2023. Cursed? Why one does not simply add new data sets to supervised geothermal machine learning models. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70251029

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Don’t Let Negatives Hold You Back: Accounting for Underlying Physics and Natural Distributions of Hydrothermal Systems When Selecting Negative Training Sites Leads to Better Machine Learning Predictions

Selecting negative training sites is an important challenge to resolve when utilizing machine learning (ML) for predicting hydrothermal resource favorability because ideal models would discriminate between hydrothermal systems (positives) and all types of locations without hydrothermal systems (negatives). The Nevada Machine Learning project (NVML) fit an artificial neural network to identify areas favorable for hydrothermal systems by selecting 62 negative sites where the research team had confidence that no hydrothermal resource exists. Herein, we compare the implications of the expert selection of negatives (i.e., the NVML strategy) with a random sample strategy, where it is assumed that areas outside the favorable structural ellipses defined by NVML are negative. Because hydrothermal systems are sparse, it is highly probable that, in the absence of a favorable geological structure, hydrothermal favorability is low. We compare three training strategies: 1) the positive and negative labeled examples from NVML; 2) the positive examples from NVML with randomly selected negatives in equal frequency as NVML; and 3) the positive examples from NVML with randomly selected negatives reflecting the expected natural distribution of hydrothermal systems relative to the total area. We apply these training strategies to the NVML feature data (input data) using two ML algorithms (XGBoost and logistic regression) to create six favorability maps for hydrothermal resources. When accounting for the expected natural distribution of hydrothermal systems, we find that XGBoost performs better than the NVML neural network and its negatives. Model validation was less reliable using F1 scores, a common performance metric, than comparing probability estimates at known positives, likely because of the extreme natural class imbalance and the lack of negatively labeled sites. This work demonstrates that expert selection of negatives for training in NVML likely imparted modeling bias. Accounting for the sparsity of hydrothermal systems and all the types of locations without hydrothermal systems allows us to create better models for predicting hydrothermal resource favorability.

Geothermal Resources Council Transactions

Bathymetric maps, surface areas, and storage capacities of Council Grove Lake and Marion Reservoir, Kansas, and Pine Creek Lake, Oklahoma, 2024

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, completed high-resolution multibeam bathymetric surveys to compute new elevation-area-capacity tables for Council Grove Lake and Marion Reservoir, Kansas, and Pine Creek Lake, Oklahoma. Elevation-area-capacity tables identify the relation between the water-surface elevation, surface area, and storage capacity of the lake. The surface areas and storage capacities of each lake were computed from bathymetric surfaces combining multibeam echo sounder data collected in 2024 and light detection and ranging point-cloud data collected in 2016 and 2018.

Kansas, Oklahoma