Uncertainty estimation for amplitude variation with offset (AVO) inversion
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper uses a Bayesian approach for inverting seismic amplitude versus offset (AVO) data to provide estimates and uncertainties of the viscoelastic physical parameters at an interface. The inversion is based on Gibbs' sampling approach to determine properties of the posterior probability distribution (PPD), such as the posterior mean, maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimate, marginal probability distributions, and covariances. The Bayesian formulation represents a fully nonlinear inversion; the results are compared to those of standard linearized inversion. The nonlinear and linearized approaches are applied to synthetic test cases which consider AVO inversion for shallow marine environments with both unconsolidated and consolidated seabeds. The result of neglecting attenuation in the seabed is investigated, and the effects of data factors such as independent and systematic errors and the range of incident angles are considered. The Bayesian approach is also applied to estimate the physical parameters and uncertainties from AVO data collected at two sites along a seismic line in the Baltic Sea with differing sediment types; it clearly identifies the distinct seabed compositions. Data uncertainties (independent and systematic) required for this analysis are estimated using a maximum-likelihood approach.
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.
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 it