ArticleScientific reports2026
Impact of data space augmentation strategy on model accuracy and generalization in thin-section rock classification.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The growing importance of machine learning in geological data computing, as well as in the broader geoscience and energy sectors, makes it essential to evaluate the impact of data augmentation on model performance, since the reliability of model outcomes in these domains is critical. Although data augmentation is widely applied and often recommended as a standard step in machine learning pipelines, its uncritical use may distort results and undermine the reliability of automated analyses. Despite its popularity, relatively few systematic studies assess how augmentation influences model behavior in geoscience applications, particularly in microscopic rock imagery. To address this need, the present work investigates the effects of static and dynamic data space augmentation on the performance and generalization of convolutional models, using datasets of realistic microscopic images of rock thin sections as an interdisciplinary application of established techniques in geological prediction. A total of 133 augmentation configurations across 691 scenarios were tested on five convolutional models, including three pretrained networks and two trained from scratch. Results show that augmentation has a significant and highly variable impact on performance. In many cases, augmentation reduced classification accuracy, while specific configurations improved outcomes. Linear and nonlinear image mixing proved particularly beneficial for generalization, especially when data were limited. Furthermore, in low-data scenarios, static augmentation sometimes yielded better or more stable results than dynamic approaches, reducing the need for extensive fine-tuning of models. While some augmentation methods enhanced performance, many degraded it, and although training times scaled proportionally with the technique, accuracies varied considerably. These findings highlight that augmentation can partly offset data limitations. However, the strategies should be chosen carefully and tailored to specific use in geoscientific machine learning applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.