MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1552858409 · doi:10.1111/1365-2478.12088

Spectral decomposition and de‐noising via time‐frequency and space‐wavenumber reassignment

2013· article· en· W1552858409 on OpenAlexaff
Han Li, Mauricio D. Sacchi, Liguo Han

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Prospecting · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeconvolutionThresholdingEnergy (signal processing)Computer scienceSeismic traceFrequency domainNoise (video)AlgorithmSeismic migrationTime domainTime–frequency analysisPassive seismicGeologyMathematicsSeismologyArtificial intelligenceTelecommunicationsStatisticsComputer visionImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The reassignment method remaps the energy of each point in a time‐frequency spectrum to a new coordinate that is closer to the actual time‐frequency location. Two applications of the reassignment method are developed in this paper. We first describe time‐frequency reassignment as a tool for spectral decomposition. The reassignment method helps to generate more clear frequency slices of layers and therefore, it facilitates the interpretation of thin layers. The second application is to seismic data de‐noising. Through thresholding in the reassigned domain rather than in the Gabor domain, random noise is more easily attenuated since seismic events are more compactly represented with a relatively larger energy than the noise. A reconstruction process that permits the recovery of seismic data from a reassigned time‐frequency spectrum is developed. Two approaches of the reassignment method are used in this paper, one of which is referred to as the trace by trace time reassignment that is mainly used for seismic spectral decomposition and another that is the spatial reassignment that is mainly used for seismic de‐noising. Synthetic examples and two field data examples are used to test the proposed method. For comparison, the Gabor transform method, inversion‐based method and common deconvolution method are also used in the examples.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical ProspectingSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207