How reliable is statistical wavelet estimation?
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 Well logs often are used for the estimation of seismic wavelets. The phase is obtained by forcing a well-derived synthetic seismogram to match the seismic, thus assuming the well log provides ground truth. However, well logs are not always available and can predict different phase corrections at nearby locations. Thus, a wavelet-estimation method that reliably can predict phase from the seismic alone is required. Three statistical wavelet-estimation techniques were tested against the deterministic method of seismic-to-well ties. How the choice of method influences the estimated wavelet phase was explored, with the aim of finding a statistical method which consistently predicts a phase in agreement with well logs. It was shown that the statistical method of kurtosis maximization by constant phase rotation consistently is able to extract a phase in agreement with seismic-to-well ties. A statistical method based on a modified mutual-information-rate criterion was demonstrated to provide frequency-dependent phase wavelets where the deterministic method could not. Time-varying statistical wavelets also were estimated with good results — a challenge for deterministic approaches because of the short logging sequence. It was concluded that statistical techniques can be used as quality control tools for the deterministic methods, as a way of extrapolating phase away from wells, or to act as standalone tools in the absence of wells.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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