Application of a Convex Phase Retrieval Method to Blind Seismic Deconvolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary A classical strategy for blind seismic deconvolution is to first estimate the autocorrelation of the unknown source wavelet from the data and then recover the wavelet by assuming it has minimum phase. However, computing the minimum phase wavelet directly from the amplitude spectrum can be sensitive to even extremely small errors, especially in the coefficients close to zero. Since the minimum phase requirement follows from an assumption that the wavelet should be as impulsive as possible, we propose to directly estimate an impulsive wavelet by minimizing a weighted $l_2$ penalty subject to a constraint on its amplitude spectrum. This nonconvex model has the form of a phase retrieval problem, in this case recovering a signal given only estimates of the magnitudes of its Fourier coefficients. Following recent work on convex relaxations of phase retrieval problems, we propose a convex semidefinite program for computing an impulsive minimum phase wavelet whose amplitude spectrum is close to a given estimate, and we show that this can be robustly solved by a Douglas Rachford splitting method for convex optimization.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".