Regularization and datuming of seismic data by weighted, damped least squares
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The possibility of improving regularization/datuming of seismic data is investigated by treating wavefield extrapolation as an inversion problem. Weighted, damped least squares is then used to produce the regularized/datumed wavefield. Regularization/datuming is extremely costly because of computing the Hessian, so an efficient approximation is introduced. Approximation is achieved by computing a limited number of diagonals in the operators involved. Real and synthetic data examples demonstrate the utility of this approach. For synthetic data, regularization/datuming is demonstrated for large extrapolation distances using a highly irregular recording array. Without approximation, regularization/datuming returns a regularized wavefield with reduced operator artifacts when compared to a nonregularizing method such as generalized phase shift plus interpolation (PSPI). Approximate regularization/datuming returns a regularized wavefield for approximately two orders of magnitude less in cost; but it is dip limited, though in a controllable way, compared to the full method. The Foothills structural data set, a freely available data set from the Rocky Mountains of Canada, demonstrates application to real data. The data have highly irregular sampling along the shot coordinate, and they suffer from significant near-surface effects. Approximate regularization/datuming returns common receiver data that are superior in appearance compared to conventional datuming.
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 | 0.000 | 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".