Application of randomized sampling schemes to curvelet‐based sparsity‐promoting seismic data recovery
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Reconstruction of seismic data is routinely used to improve the quality and resolution of seismic data from incomplete acquired seismic recordings. Curvelet‐based Recovery by Sparsity‐promoting Inversion, adapted from the recently‐developed theory of compressive sensing, is one such kind of reconstruction, especially good for recovery of undersampled seismic data. Like traditional Fourier‐based methods, it performs best when used in conjunction with randomized subsampling, which converts aliases from the usual regular periodic subsampling into easy‐to‐eliminate noise. By virtue of its ability to control gap size, along with the random and irregular nature of its sampling pattern, jittered (sub)sampling is one proven method that has been used successfully for the determination of geophone positions along a seismic line. In this paper, we extend jittered sampling to two‐dimensional acquisition design, a more difficult problem, with both underlying Cartesian and hexagonal grids. We also study what we term separable and non‐separable two‐dimensional jittered samplings. We find hexagonal jittered sampling performs better than Cartesian jittered sampling, while fully non‐separable jittered sampling performs better than separable jittered sampling. Two other 2D randomized sampling methods, Poisson Disk sampling and Farthest Point sampling, both known to possess blue‐noise spectra, are also shown to perform well.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it