MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Difficulties with computing anelastic plane-wave reflection and transmission coefficients

2007· article· en· W2116355519 on OpenAlexaff
Edward S. Krebes, P. F. Daley

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Journal International · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSlownessReflection (computer programming)Mathematical analysisComputationPlane (geometry)Point (geometry)Reflection coefficientMathematicsPlane waveGeologyGeometrySeismologyPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Consider a plane homogeneous wave incident upon an interface between two anelastic half-spaces. Computing the plane-wave displacement reflection and transmission coefficients requires determining the proper signs of the vertical slownesses of all the reflected and transmitted waves. In certain cases, this is not straightforward. Previous work has shown that choosing the signs by applying the elastic radiation condition results in certain vertical slownesses, and hence coefficients, varying discontinuously and unphysically with the angle of incidence, and that choosing the signs so that the vertical slownesses vary continuously can also produce errors. We suggest three approaches for treating these cases. In the first approach, the signs are chosen so that the vertical slownesses vary continuously up to a certain angle of incidence (close to the elastic critical angle), with the elastic radiation condition being applied beyond that. We show that this is actually just an extension of the elastic radiation condition to complex-valued squared slownesses. In the spherical wave case in which a point source lies in the upper half-space, the approach also agrees with the results obtained by applying the saddle point method to approximate the integral for the reflected wavefield. This approximation is just geometrical ray theory. The first approach also produces coefficients with unphysical aspects, but these are confined to the critical zone, where geometrical ray theory is not valid anyway. Outside of this zone, the coefficients compare quite well with the elastic ones. In the second approach, real values of the horizontal slowness are used to compute the coefficients. This results in coefficients which are continuous and have no unphysical aspects, but do not compare as well with the elastic ones. The third approach involves using other paths in the complex plane (of horizontal slowness) to evaluate the coefficients. We show two examples. The first example is an approximation which involves replacing certain vertical slownesses with their complex conjugates before the coefficients are computed. This is equivalent to evaluating the horizontal slowness along a curve just above the real axis. The second example involves using a path which yields coefficients that are almost identical to the elastic ones. The third approach also results in continuous coefficients with no unphysical aspects, which compare well with the elastic ones. The errors mentioned above suggest to us that the problem of how to correctly compute plane-wave anelastic reflection and transmission coefficients, even in the apparently simple case of a homogeneous incident plane wave, still requires further study.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations51
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Journal InternationalSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207