pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.01273 · v2 · submitted 2026-05-02 · ⚛️ physics.geo-ph

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Learning Stratigraphically Consistent Relative Geologic Time from 3D Seismic Data via Sinusoidal Mapping

Hui Gao, Xinming Wu, Yimin Dou, Zhengfa Bi

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 03:50 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.geo-ph
keywords relative geologic timeseismic datadeep learningsinusoidal mappingstratigraphic consistencyhorizon correlationRGT estimationgeophysical imaging
0
0 comments X

The pith

Mapping relative geologic time to a sinusoidal space lets deep learning produce more accurate and topologically consistent stratigraphic fields from 3D seismic data.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces RGT-Est, a deep-learning framework that reframes relative geologic time estimation from seismic volumes by mapping the target field into a differentiable sinusoidal space. This transformation explicitly represents the periodic semantics of stratigraphic layers, which helps avoid the over-smoothing of thin horizons that occurs with standard pixel-wise regression losses. Pointwise, perceptual, and adversarial losses are then applied jointly in the new space to enforce local accuracy, inter-layer consistency, and global structural plausibility. The method is trained on synthetic data and tested on field surveys containing faults, unconformities, steep dips, folds, and clinoforms. Without horizon priors it outperforms prior AI approaches; with sparse 2D or 3D horizon guidance it further raises correlation accuracy and topological fidelity.

Core claim

RGT-Est transfers the optimization target from the topologically constrained continuous RGT field into a differentiable sinusoidal space that explicitly encodes periodic stratigraphic semantics, and imposes pointwise, perceptual, and adversarial losses in this space to achieve local fidelity, inter-layer consistency, and global structural plausibility, resulting in superior performance on synthetic and field seismic data with faults, unconformities, and deformations.

What carries the argument

The sinusoidal mapping of the relative geologic time field, which converts the continuous stratigraphic field into a space where periodic semantics are represented differentiably for joint optimization with multiple loss functions.

If this is right

  • Achieves state-of-the-art performance among AI-based RGT methods without horizon constraints.
  • Attains substantially higher horizon-correlation accuracy and global topological consistency once sparse priors are incorporated.
  • Handles complex geological settings including densely faulted zones, large unconformities, steeply dipping strata, folded deformations, and clinoforms.
  • Provides both fine-horizon discrimination and global stratigraphic awareness through combined losses in the sinusoidal space.
  • Trained only on synthetic data, the framework generalizes to diverse real field surveys.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The sinusoidal mapping could be tested on other layered inverse problems in geophysics, such as acoustic impedance or velocity model building, where periodicity is also central.
  • Adversarial training in the mapped space might be combined with physics-based forward modeling to generate more realistic training volumes.
  • The approach could reduce reliance on dense manual interpretation in reservoir characterization by allowing sparse well or horizon data to guide automated RGT volumes.
  • Evaluating the method on synthetic models with controlled noise levels and fault densities would help isolate the contribution of the mapping versus the loss terms.

Load-bearing premise

Transforming RGT into a sinusoidal space encodes the periodic stratigraphic semantics and reduces over-smoothing of fine horizons without causing loss of topological information or new artifacts in real-world complex structures.

What would settle it

If direct-regression baselines achieve equal or higher horizon-correlation accuracy and global topological consistency than the sinusoidal-mapping model on the same densely faulted and unconformable field surveys, the claimed benefit of the mapping would be refuted.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.01273 by Hui Gao, Xinming Wu, Yimin Dou, Zhengfa Bi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of the proposed RGT-Est framework. A 3D HRNet backbone takes a 3D seismic volume with optional 2D / 3D horizon guidance as input ˆˆ ˆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of the proposed RGT-Est framework. A 3D HRNet backbone takes a 3D seismic volume with optional 2D / 3D horizon guidance as input and predicts a continuous RGT scalar field Rˆ. The Sinusoidal Mapping module maps Rˆ into a three-channel phase space via sin(fiRˆ) with f1=2.0, f2=1.0, f3=0.5, yielding the Sinusoidal RGT. Training jointly minimizes the MAE, perceptual, and adversarial losses over the P… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Gradient back-propagation comparison between the raw RGT space and the proposed sinusoidal space. A pretrained 3D HRNet is kept frozen, and ˆ ˆˆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Gradient back-propagation comparison between the raw RGT space and the proposed sinusoidal space. A pretrained 3D HRNet is kept frozen, and the L1 and 3D LPIPS losses are computed either directly on Rˆ or on its sinusoidal encoding T (Rˆ); the gradient at Rˆ is recorded for comparison. (a) Inline slice of the seismic input, the GT RGT, the prediction, and the resulting L1/LPIPS gradient maps in both domain… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Qualitative comparison of RGT estimation on field seismic volumes. From left to right, each group presents the input seismic volume, the result of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Qualitative comparison of RGT estimation on field seismic volumes. From left to right, each group presents the input seismic volume, the result of DeepRGT† (re-implementation) (Bi et al., 2021), and the result of the proposed RGT-Est. For both methods, the displayed horizons are extracted as iso-surfaces from the estimated RGT fields and overlaid on the seismic volumes for visual comparison. The colored da… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Effect of stratigraphic constraints on RGT estimation. (a) Incorporating 2D horizon constraints into RGT-Est. The purple dashed curves denote [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Effect of stratigraphic constraints on RGT estimation. The purple lines represent the input 2D horizon constraints, which also serve as reference lines for the horizons. (a) Incorporating 2D horizon constraints into RGT-Est. The purple dashed curves denote ground-truth horizons used for visual comparison, and the yellow boxes highlight regions where the constrained result better honors the target stratigra… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Representative RGT estimation results on challenging field surveys. From left to right, each row shows the input seismic volume, the estimated RGT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Representative RGT estimation results on challenging field surveys. From left to right, each row shows the input seismic volume, the estimated RGT field, and the horizons extracted from the estimated RGT field and overlaid on the seismic volume. The six rows corre￾spond to the Costa Rica survey, the Poseidon survey in Australia, two Netherlands surveys, and two field surveys from a region in China. These e… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization of intermediate features learned by RGT-Est. For each example, the seismic volume is shown together with the RGB visualization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization of intermediate features learned by RGT-Est. For each example, the seismic volume is shown together with the RGB visualization of the Stage 3 HRNet feature map after PCA along the channel dimension. The feature responses highlight geologically important structures, including faults, unconformities, horizons, slope bodies, and deformed stratigraphic intervals. This indicates that RGT￾Est learn… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Relative Geologic Time (RGT) estimation from seismic data is a cornerstone of subsurface structural modeling, depositional evolution analysis, and reservoir characterization, supporting horizon correlation and depositional system reconstruction. Yet accurate RGT estimation remains challenging: RGT is intrinsically a topologically constrained continuous field, in which local errors readily propagate globally and distort the overall result. Conventional methods rely heavily on priors, attribute extraction, and manual interaction, leading to cumbersome workflows. Existing deep-learning approaches mostly use a regression formulation with pixel-wise MSE/MAE losses, which struggle to capture thin horizons and fail to model the stratigraphic semantics of the RGT field, yielding limited generalization and unstable ordering across diverse structural and depositional settings. We propose RGT-Est, a deep-learning framework that transfers the optimization target from the topologically constrained continuous field into a differentiable sinusoidal space, which explicitly encodes the periodic stratigraphic semantics of RGT and alleviates over-smoothing of fine horizons. Pointwise, perceptual, and adversarial losses are jointly imposed in this space to enforce local fidelity, inter-layer consistency, and global structural plausibility, providing both fine-horizon discrimination and global stratigraphic awareness. An optional horizon-guidance module further accepts sparse 2D or 3D horizons as priors. Trained on synthetic data and evaluated on field surveys with densely faulted zones, large unconformities, steeply dipping strata, folded deformations, and clinoforms, RGT-Est achieves state-of-the-art performance among AI-based methods without horizon constraints, and attains substantially higher horizon-correlation accuracy and global topological consistency once sparse priors are incorporated.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes RGT-Est, a deep-learning framework for estimating relative geologic time (RGT) from 3D seismic data. It maps the topologically constrained RGT field into a differentiable sinusoidal space to encode periodic stratigraphic semantics, applies joint pointwise, perceptual, and adversarial losses in that space, and includes an optional horizon-guidance module for sparse priors. Trained on synthetic data and evaluated on field surveys containing faults, unconformities, steep dips, folds, and clinoforms, the method claims state-of-the-art performance among AI-based approaches without horizon constraints and substantially improved horizon-correlation accuracy plus global topological consistency when priors are added.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work could advance automated seismic interpretation by producing RGT fields that better preserve fine horizons and global ordering without heavy manual priors, directly supporting horizon correlation, depositional reconstruction, and reservoir modeling in geophysics.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that the sinusoidal mapping 'explicitly encodes the periodic stratigraphic semantics of RGT and alleviates over-smoothing of fine horizons' is load-bearing for the entire contribution, yet no derivation, inverse-mapping analysis, or proof is supplied showing that the transform (and its joint losses) preserves strict monotonicity and ordering across discontinuities such as faults and large unconformities; without this, phase wrapping could introduce non-monotonic artifacts that undermine the asserted global topological consistency.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the assertions of 'state-of-the-art performance among AI-based methods without horizon constraints' and 'substantially higher horizon-correlation accuracy and global topological consistency' once priors are incorporated are central to the evaluation claims, but the abstract supplies no quantitative metrics, ablation studies, baseline comparisons, or dataset details; these must be provided with explicit tables and statistical tests to allow verification.
  3. [Method] Method description (sinusoidal mapping and loss formulation): the joint optimization in the wrapped sinusoidal space is presented as guaranteeing both local fidelity and global structural plausibility, but no analysis or constraint is given demonstrating that the adversarial and perceptual terms prevent ordering violations at the very structures (densely faulted zones, steeply dipping strata) used in the field evaluation; a concrete test or counter-example on synthetic discontinuities would be required.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would benefit from a brief, explicit statement of the sinusoidal transform (e.g., sin(2π·RGT) or variant) and the precise form of the three loss terms to improve immediate readability.
  2. Notation for the optional horizon-guidance module should be introduced consistently when first mentioned, including how sparse 2D/3D priors are injected into the network.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough and constructive review. We address each major comment point by point below, providing clarifications based on the manuscript content and indicating revisions where they strengthen the work without misrepresenting our contributions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that the sinusoidal mapping 'explicitly encodes the periodic stratigraphic semantics of RGT and alleviates over-smoothing of fine horizons' is load-bearing for the entire contribution, yet no derivation, inverse-mapping analysis, or proof is supplied showing that the transform (and its joint losses) preserves strict monotonicity and ordering across discontinuities such as faults and large unconformities; without this, phase wrapping could introduce non-monotonic artifacts that undermine the asserted global topological consistency.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee's emphasis on rigor for this central claim. The sinusoidal mapping is motivated by the periodic nature of stratigraphic layering, where phase cycles naturally correspond to horizon intervals, and the differentiable transform allows joint optimization of pointwise, perceptual, and adversarial losses to promote both local horizon fidelity and global ordering. While the original manuscript provides the formulation and empirical validation on field data containing faults and unconformities (showing preserved topology via horizon correlation metrics), it does not include an explicit inverse-mapping derivation or formal proof of strict monotonicity preservation. To address this directly, we will add a dedicated analysis subsection in the revised Method section that derives the inverse mapping properties and includes targeted synthetic experiments on discontinuities to confirm that the joint losses mitigate phase-wrapping artifacts and maintain ordering. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the assertions of 'state-of-the-art performance among AI-based methods without horizon constraints' and 'substantially higher horizon-correlation accuracy and global topological consistency' once priors are incorporated are central to the evaluation claims, but the abstract supplies no quantitative metrics, ablation studies, baseline comparisons, or dataset details; these must be provided with explicit tables and statistical tests to allow verification.

    Authors: The referee correctly notes that the abstract is a high-level summary and omits specific numbers. The full manuscript details the evaluations, including comparisons to prior AI methods, ablation studies on loss components, dataset descriptions (synthetic training and field surveys with faults, unconformities, steep dips, folds, and clinoforms), quantitative metrics such as horizon correlation accuracy and topological consistency scores, and statistical comparisons. To enhance verifiability as requested, we will revise the abstract to concisely incorporate key quantitative results (e.g., specific accuracy gains and references to tables) while preserving its brevity. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Method] Method description (sinusoidal mapping and loss formulation): the joint optimization in the wrapped sinusoidal space is presented as guaranteeing both local fidelity and global structural plausibility, but no analysis or constraint is given demonstrating that the adversarial and perceptual terms prevent ordering violations at the very structures (densely faulted zones, steeply dipping strata) used in the field evaluation; a concrete test or counter-example on synthetic discontinuities would be required.

    Authors: We agree that targeted validation on challenging structures strengthens the claims. The manuscript demonstrates effectiveness through synthetic training data and real field evaluations on surveys containing densely faulted zones, steep dips, and related features, with results indicating improved global consistency via the joint losses. However, the original text does not isolate a dedicated counter-example test on synthetic discontinuities specifically for the adversarial and perceptual terms. We will add this in the revised Experiments section: a controlled synthetic test with injected faults and unconformities, comparing single-loss versus joint-loss variants, including visualizations and ordering-violation metrics to show how the combined terms prevent artifacts at these structures. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: novel sinusoidal mapping and loss design are independent methodological choices

full rationale

The paper introduces RGT-Est as a new neural architecture that maps the RGT field into a differentiable sinusoidal space and applies joint pointwise/perceptual/adversarial losses there. This is an explicit design decision rather than a derivation that reduces to its own inputs by construction. No equations are shown to equate a 'prediction' with a fitted parameter, no uniqueness theorem is imported from self-citations, and no ansatz is smuggled via prior work. Performance claims rest on training and evaluation against synthetic and field data, which are external to the method definition itself.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that RGT is a topologically constrained continuous field and that a sinusoidal mapping can encode its periodic semantics; no free parameters or new physical entities are introduced beyond standard neural-network training choices.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption RGT is intrinsically a topologically constrained continuous field in which local errors readily propagate globally
    Explicitly stated in the abstract as the core difficulty that conventional and prior deep-learning methods fail to address.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5591 in / 1386 out tokens · 80754 ms · 2026-05-12T03:50:51.825145+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Geophysics , volume =

    Geng, Zhicheng and Wu, Xinming and Shi, Yunzhi and Fomel, Sergey , title =. Geophysics , volume =. 2020 , doi =

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , volume =

    Yang, Jiarun and Wu, Xinming and Bi, Zhengfa and Geng, Zhicheng , title =. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , volume =. 2023 , doi =

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Patel, M. D. and McMechan, G. A. , title =. Computers & Geosciences , volume =

    work page

  4. [4]

    Stark, T. J. , title =. 73rd Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts , pages =

    work page

  5. [5]

    Stark, T. J. , title =. The Leading Edge , volume =

    work page

  6. [6]

    Petroleum Exploration and Development , volume =

    Zeng, Hongliu and Zhu, Xiaomin and Zhu, Rukai and Zhang, Qisong , title =. Petroleum Exploration and Development , volume =

    work page

  7. [7]

    Structural data constraints for implicit modeling of folds , journal =

    Grose, Laurent and Laurent, Gautier and Aill. Structural data constraints for implicit modeling of folds , journal =

    work page

  8. [8]

    and Spikes, K

    Bader, S. and Spikes, K. and Fomel, S. , title =. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts , pages =

    work page

  9. [9]

    Geophysical Prospecting , volume =

    Karimi, Parvaneh and Fomel, Sergey , title =. Geophysical Prospecting , volume =

    work page

  10. [10]

    Zeng, Hongliu and Backus, M. M. and Barrow, K. T. and Tyler, N. , title =. Geophysics , volume =

    work page

  11. [11]

    and Hemstra, N

    de Bruin, G. and Hemstra, N. and Pouwel, A. , title =. The Leading Edge , volume =

    work page

  12. [12]

    Geophysics , volume =

    Wu, Xinming and Zhong, Guangzhi , title =. Geophysics , volume =

    work page

  13. [13]

    Geophysics , volume =

    Fomel, Sergey , title =. Geophysics , volume =

    work page

  14. [14]

    , title =

    Lomask, Jesse and Guitton, Antoine and Fomel, Sergey and Claerbout, Jon and Valenciano, Alejandro A. , title =. Geophysics , volume =

    work page

  15. [15]

    Geophysical Journal International , volume =

    Wu, Xinming and Janson, Xavier , title =. Geophysical Journal International , volume =

    work page

  16. [16]

    Geophysics , volume =

    Wu, Xinming and Fomel, Sergey , title =. Geophysics , volume =

    work page

  17. [17]

    Figueiredo, A. M. and Gattass, M. and Szenberg, F. , title =. 10th International Congress of the Brazilian Geophysical Society , pages =

    work page

  18. [18]

    Geophysics , volume =

    Lou, Yihuai and Zhang, Bo and Fang, Huilin and Cao, Danping and Wang, Kai and Huo, Zhizhong , title =. Geophysics , volume =

    work page

  19. [19]

    Geophysics , volume =

    Luo, Simon and Hale, Dave , title =. Geophysics , volume =

    work page

  20. [20]

    Geophysics , volume =

    Wu, Xinming and Luo, Simon and Hale, Dave , title =. Geophysics , volume =

    work page

  21. [21]

    Geophysics , volume =

    Wu, Xinming and Hale, Dave , title =. Geophysics , volume =

    work page

  22. [22]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.11614 , year =

    Yu, Siwei and Ma, Jianwei and Wang, Wenlong , title =. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.11614 , year =

    work page arXiv

  23. [23]

    Geophysics , volume =

    Wu, Xinming and Liang, Luming and Shi, Yunzhi and Fomel, Sergey , title =. Geophysics , volume =

    work page

  24. [24]

    Geophysics , volume =

    Gao, Hang and Wu, Xinming and Liu, Guofeng , title =. Geophysics , volume =

    work page

  25. [25]

    Interpretation , volume =

    Shi, Yunzhi and Wu, Xinming and Fomel, Sergey , title =. Interpretation , volume =

    work page

  26. [26]

    Geophysics , volume =

    Yang, Fangshu and Ma, Jianwei , title =. Geophysics , volume =

    work page

  27. [27]

    Geophysical Journal International , volume =

    Geng, Zhicheng and Zhao, Zeyu and Shi, Yunzhi and Wu, Xinming and Fomel, Sergey and Sen, Mrinal , title =. Geophysical Journal International , volume =

    work page

  28. [28]

    Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth , volume =

    Bi, Zhengfa and Wu, Xinming and Geng, Zhicheng and Li, Haishan , title =. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth , volume =

    work page

  29. [29]

    Geophysics , volume =

    Wu, Xinming and Geng, Zhicheng and Shi, Yunzhi and Pham, Nam and Fomel, Sergey and Caumon, Guillaume , title =. Geophysics , volume =

    work page

  30. [30]

    and Shechtman, Eli and Wang, Oliver , title =

    Zhang, Richard and Isola, Phillip and Efros, Alexei A. and Shechtman, Eli and Wang, Oliver , title =. Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages =

    work page

  31. [31]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.00734 , year =

    Jolicoeur-Martineau, Alexia , title =. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.00734 , year =

    work page arXiv

  32. [32]

    Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages=

    Image-to-image translation with conditional adversarial networks , author=. Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages=

    work page

  33. [33]

    Geometric

    Lim, Jae Hyun and Ye, Jong Chul , booktitle=. Geometric

    work page

  34. [34]

    International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year=

    Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization , author=. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year=

    work page

  35. [35]

    Geophysics , volume=

    Seismic horizon tracking based on the TransUnet model , author=. Geophysics , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    work page 2025

  36. [36]

    Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering , volume=

    Variable seismic waveforms representation: Weak-supervised learning based seismic horizon picking , author=. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    work page 2022

  37. [37]

    IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , volume=

    A deep learning-based seismic horizon tracking method with uncertainty encoding and vertical constraint , author=. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , volume=

    Seismic horizon identification using semi-supervised learning with virtual adversarial training , author=. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    work page 2022

  39. [39]

    IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , volume=

    Seismic attributes aided horizon interpretation using an ensemble dense inception transformer network , author=. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , volume=

    Automatic extraction of seismic data horizon across faults , author=. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    work page 2022

  41. [41]

    , year =

    Dou, Y. , year =. RGT-Est: Datasets and Trained Model Weights for Learning Stratigraphically Consistent Relative Geologic Time from 3D Seismic Data via Sinusoidal Mapping [Dataset/Software] , howpublished =. doi:10.5281/zenodo.20118902 , url =

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.20118902