Five ways to avoid storing source wavefield snapshots in 2D elastic prestack reverse time migration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Five alternative algorithms were evaluated to circumvent the excessive storage requirement imposed by saving source wavefield snapshots used for the crosscorrelation image condition in 2D prestack elastic reverse time migration. We compared the algorithms on the basis of their ability, either to accurately reconstruct (not save) the source wavefield or to use an alternate image condition so that neither saving nor reconstruction of full wavefields was involved. The comparisons were facilitated by using the same (velocity-stress) extrapolator in all the algorithms, and running them all on the same hardware. We assumed that there was enough memory in a node to do an extrapolation, and that all input data were stored on disk rather than residing in random-access memory. This should provide a fair and balanced comparison. Reconstruction of the source wavefield from boundary and/or initial values reduced the required storage to a very small fraction of that needed to store source wavefield snapshots for conventional crosscorrelation, at the cost of adding an additional source extrapolation. Reverse time checkpointing avoided recursive forward recomputation. Two nonreconstructive imaging conditions do not require full snapshot storage or an additional extrapolation. Time-binning the imaging criteria removed the need for image time searching or sorting. Numerical examples using elastic data from the Marmousi2 model showed that the quality of the elastic prestack PP and PS images produced by the cost-optimized alternative algorithms were (virtually) identical to the higher cost images produced by traditional crosscorrelation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".