MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144079431 · doi:10.1190/1.1635058

Interpolation and multiple attenuation with migration operators

2003· article· en· W2144079431 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Trad

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsBP (Canada)
FundersColorado School of MinesWestern Digital
KeywordsOffset (computer science)MathematicsOperator (biology)Interpolation (computer graphics)Mathematical analysisWavenumberAlgorithmGeometryComputer scienceOpticsPhysicsComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A hyperbolic Radon transform (RT) can be applied with success to attenuate or interpolate hyperbolic events in seismic data. However, this method fails when the hyperbolic events have apexes located at nonzero offset positions. A different RT operator is required for these cases, an operator that scans for hyperbolas with apexes centered at any offset. This procedure defines an extension of the standard hyperbolic RT with hyperbolic basis functions located at every point of the data gather. The mathematical description of such an operator is basically similar to a kinematic poststack time-migration equation, with the horizontal coordinate being not midpoint but offset. In this paper, this transformation is implemented by using a least-squares conjugate gradient algorithm with a sparseness constraint. Two different operators are considered, one in the time domain and the other in the frequency-wavenumber domain (Stolt operator). The sparseness constraint in the time-offset domain is essential for resampling and for interpolation. The frequency-wavenumber domain operator is very efficient, not much more expensive in computation time than a sparse parabolic RT, and much faster than a standard hyperbolic RT. Examples of resampling, interpolation, and coherent noise attenuation using the frequency-wavenumber domain operator are presented. Near and far offset gaps are interpolated in synthetic and real shot gathers, with simultaneous resampling beyond aliasing. Waveforms are well preserved in general except when there is little coherence in the data outside the gaps or events with very different velocities are located at the same time. Multiples of diffractions are predicted and attenuated by subtraction from the data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations130
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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