MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037469421 · doi:10.1190/geo2012-0104.1

Regularized seismic full waveform inversion with prior model information

2013· article· en· W2037469421 on OpenAlexaff
A. Asnaashari, Romain Brossier, Stéphane Garambois, F. Audebert, P. Thore, J. Virieux

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsGeoscience BC
FundersGrand Équipement National De Calcul Intensif
KeywordsInversion (geology)SmoothingComputer scienceAlgorithmInverse problemPrior informationWeightingTikhonov regularizationSynthetic dataPrior probabilityMathematical optimizationBayesian probabilityGeologyMathematicsArtificial intelligenceComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Full waveform inversion (FWI) delivers high-resolution quantitative images and is a promising technique to obtain macroscale physical property model of the subsurface. In most geophysical applications, prior information, such as that collected in wells, is available and should be used to increase the image reliability. For this, we propose to introduce three terms in the definition of the FWI misfit function: the data misfit itself, the first-order Tikhonov regularization term acting as a smoothing operator, and a prior model norm term. This last term is the way to smoothly introduce prior information into the FWI workflow. On a selected target of the Marmousi synthetic example, significant improvement was obtained when using the prior model term for noise-free and noisy synthetic data. The prior model term may significantly reduce the inversion sensitivity to incorrect initial conditions. The limited range of spatial wavenumber sampling by the acquisition may be compensated with the prior model information, for multiple-free and multiple-contaminated data. Prior and initial models play different roles in the inversion scheme. The starting model is used for wave propagation and therefore drives the data-misfit gradient, whereas the prior model is never explicitly used for solving the wave equation and only drives the optimization step as an additional constraint to minimize the total objective function. Thus, the prior model is not required to follow kinematic properties as precisely as the initial model, except in zones of poor illumination. In addition, we investigate the influence of a simple dynamic decreasing weighting of the prior model term. Once the cycle-skipping problem has been solved, the impact of the prior model term is gradually reduced within the misfit function to be driven by seismic-data only.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.164
Teacher spread0.158 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations213
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207