Skip to content
Artificial intelligence. Clearly. RSS feed
AI NEWS AI

News. Evidence. Perspective.

ResearchExplainer

Mineral defects widen the gap between AI and human track counts

HALtracks2D closely matched an experienced analyst on clean grains, while more complicated surfaces made the counting judgement harder.

Fragments from splitting atoms leave tiny damage tracks in minerals. Geologists chemically etch the sample to expose those marks, then count them under a microscope as one input to dating rocks and reconstructing their heating history.[1]

HALtracks2D identifies tracks in images of apatite and mica. It uses light passing through the sample and light reflected from its surface, helping connect a surface opening to the underlying track.[1]

In one comparison, its mean track-density estimates differed from an experienced analyst’s by about 4% on grains without non-track features and 20% on grains with them. The analyst had already excluded heavily cluttered grains, judged to have a noise-to-signal ratio above 0.5. Here, noise means marks judged not to be tracks.[1]

The result measures counting agreement on selected grains. It does not independently validate geological ages, and the hardest images remain outside this comparison.[1]

Follow the evidence

Sources & further reading

  1. OK computer: AI reaches human-level accuracy in fission track counting in apatite and mica Earth and Planetary Science Letters / author’s copy · Accessed 20 Oct 2026