MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Non-linear primary-multiple separation with directional curvelet frames

2007· article· en· W2002777061 on OpenAlexaff
Felix J. Herrmann, Urs Böniger, D. J. Verschuur

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Journal International · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultipleCurveletResidualSeparation (statistics)AlgorithmDistortion (music)SIGNAL (programming language)Source separationMathematicsComputer scienceDomain (mathematical analysis)Time domainStatisticsArtificial intelligenceWaveletMathematical analysisWavelet transformArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Predictive multiple suppression methods consist of two main steps: a prediction step, during which multiples are predicted from seismic data, and a primary-multiple separation step, during which the predicted multiples are 'matched' with the true multiples in the data and subsequently removed. This second separation step, which we will call the estimation step, is crucial in practice: an incorrect separation will cause residual multiple energy in the result or may lead to a distortion of the primaries, or both. To reduce these adverse effects, a new transformed-domain method is proposed where primaries and multiples are separated rather than matched. This separation is carried out on the basis of differences in the multiscale and multidirectional characteristics of these two signal components. Our method uses the curvelet transform, which maps multidimensional data volumes into almost orthogonal localized multidimensional prototype waveforms that vary in directional and spatio-temporal content. Primaries-only and multiples-only signal components are recovered from the total data volume by a non-linear optimization scheme that is stable under noisy input data. During the optimization, the two signal components are separated by enhancing sparseness (through weighted ℓ1-norms) in the transformed domain subject to fitting the observed data as the sum of the separated components to within a user-defined tolerance level. Whenever, during the optimization, the estimates for the primaries in the transformed domain correlate with the predictions for the multiples, the recovery of the coefficients for the estimated primaries will be suppressed while for regions where the correlation is small the method seeks the sparsest set of coefficients that represent the estimation for the primaries. Our algorithm does not seek a matched filter and as such it differs fundamentally from traditional adaptive subtraction methods. The method derives its stability from the sparseness obtained by a non-parametric (i.e. not depending on a parametrized physical model) multiscale and multidirectional overcomplete signal representation. This sparsity serves as prior information and allows for a Bayesian interpretation of our method during which the log-likelihood function is minimized while the two signal components are assumed to be given by a superposition of prototype waveforms, drawn independently from a probability function that is weighted by the predicted primaries and multiples. In this paper, the predictions are based on the data-driven surface-related multiple elimination method. Synthetic and field data examples show a clean separation leading to a considerable improvement in multiple suppression compared to the conventional method of adaptive matched filtering. This improved separation translates into an improved stack.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations135
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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