Application of randomized sampling schemes to curvelet‐based sparsity‐promoting seismic data recovery
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".