4.7 Article

Classification of volcanic ash particles using a convolutional neural network and probability

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 8, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-26200-2

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Izu Peninsula Geopark Promotion Council
  2. Japan Science Society [25-602]
  3. JSPS research fellowship
  4. JSP CREST [JPMJCR1761]
  5. KAKENHI [17H02063]
  6. Earthquake Research Institute, University of Tokyo [2015-B-04]
  7. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [17H02063] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Analyses of volcanic ash are typically performed either by qualitatively classifying ash particles by eye or by quantitatively parameterizing its shape and texture. While complex shapes can be classified through qualitative analyses, the results are subjective due to the difficulty of categorizing complex shapes into a single class. Although quantitative analyses are objective, selection of shape parameters is required. Here, we applied a convolutional neural network (CNN) for the classification of volcanic ash. First, we defined four basal particle shapes (blocky, vesicular, elongated, rounded) generated by different eruption mechanisms (e.g., brittle fragmentation), and then trained the CNN using particles composed of only one basal shape. The CNN could recognize the basal shapes with over 90% accuracy. Using the trained network, we classified ash particles composed of multiple basal shapes based on the output of the network, which can be interpreted as a mixing ratio of the four basal shapes. Clustering of samples by the averaged probabilities and the intensity is consistent with the eruption type. The mixing ratio output by the CNN can be used to quantitatively classify complex shapes in nature without categorizing forcibly and without the need for shape parameters, which may lead to a new taxonomy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available