MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097893949 · doi:10.1190/1.2744124

VSP wavefield separation: Wave-by-wave optimization approach

2007· article· en· W2097893949 on OpenAlexaff
E. Blias

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsVirtual Materials Group (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaveletAmplitudeAlgorithmSeismic waveGeologyNoise (video)Nonlinear systemEvent (particle physics)AcousticsComputer scienceSeismologyPhysicsOpticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Waves propagating across a vertical seismic profiling (VSP) array may be distinguished by their differing arrival times and linear-moveout velocities. Current methods typically assume that the waves propagate uniformly with an unvarying wavelet shape and amplitude. These assumptions break down in the presence of irregular spatial sampling, event truncations, wavelet variations, and noise. I present a new method that allows each event to independently vary in its amplitude and arrival time as it propagates across the array. The method uses an iterative global nonlinear optimization scheme that consists of several least-squares and two eigenvalue problems at each step. Events are stripped from the data one at a time. As stronger events are predicted and removed, weaker events then become visible and can be modeled in turn. As each new event is approximately modeled, the fit for all previously removed events is then revisited and updated. Iterations continue until no remaining coherent events can be distinguished. As VSP data sets are typically not large, the expense of this method is not a significant limitation. I demonstrate with a real-data example that this iterative approach can lead to a significantly better VSP wavefield separation than that which has been available when using conventional techniques.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score0.467

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 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

Citations31
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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