MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1898677984 · doi:10.1111/1365-2478.12105

Perturbation methods for two special cases of the time‐lapse seismic inverse problem

2014· article· en· W1898677984 on OpenAlexaff
K. A. Innanen, Mostafa Naghizadeh, Sam T. Kaplan

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Prospecting · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsShell (Canada)University of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmplitudeOffset (computer science)ScatteringRegional geologyPerturbation (astronomy)GeologyOverburdenInversion (geology)Inverse problemGeodesyPhysicsOpticsMathematical analysisHydrogeologySeismologyComputer scienceMathematicsMetamorphic petrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Scattering theory, a form of perturbation theory, is a framework from within which time‐lapse seismic reflection methods can be derived and understood. It leads to expressions relating baseline and monitoring data and Earth properties, focusing on differences between these quantities as it does so. The baseline medium is, in the language of scattering theory, the reference medium and the monitoring medium is the perturbed medium. The general scattering relationship between monitoring data, baseline data, and time‐lapse Earth property changes is likely too complex to be tractable. However, there are special cases that can be analysed for physical insight. Two of these cases coincide with recognizable areas of applied reflection seismology: amplitude versus offset modelling/inversion, and imaging. The main result of this paper is a demonstration that time‐lapse difference amplitude versus offset modelling, and time‐lapse difference data imaging, emerge from a single theoretical framework. The time‐lapse amplitude versus offset case is considered first. We constrain the general time‐lapse scattering problem to correspond with a single immobile interface that separates a static overburden from a target medium whose properties undergo time‐lapse changes. The scattering solutions contain difference‐amplitude versus offset expressions that (although presently acoustic) resemble the expressions of Landro ( ). In addition, however, they contain non‐linear corrective terms whose importance becomes significant as the contrasts across the interface grow. The difference‐amplitude versus offset case is exemplified with two parameter acoustic (bulk modulus and density) and anacoustic (P‐wave velocity and quality factor Q) examples. The time‐lapse difference data imaging case is considered next. Instead of constraining the structure of the Earth volume as in the amplitude versus offset case, we instead make a small‐contrast assumption, namely that the time‐lapse variations are small enough that we may disregard contributions from beyond first order. An initial analysis, in which the case of a single mobile boundary is examined in 1D, justifies the use of a particular imaging algorithm applied directly to difference data shot records. This algorithm, a least‐squares, shot‐profile imaging method, is additionally capable of supporting a range of regularization techniques. Synthetic examples verify the applicability of linearized imaging methods of the difference image formation under ideal conditions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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