MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2194493324 · doi:10.1190/geo2015-0108.1

Source separation for simultaneous towed-streamer marine acquisition — A compressed sensing approach

2015· article· en· W2194493324 on OpenAlexafffund
Rajiv Kumar, Haneet Wason, Felix J. Herrmann

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCompressed sensingComputer scienceMinificationOffset (computer science)Data acquisitionAlgorithmGaussianRandomnessGeologyMathematicsStatisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Simultaneous marine acquisition is an economic way to sample seismic data and speed up acquisition, wherein single or multiple source vessels fire sources at near-simultaneous or slightly random times, resulting in overlapping shot records. The current paradigm for simultaneous towed-streamer marine acquisition incorporates “low variability” in source firing times, i.e., 0≤1 or 2 s because the sources and receivers are moving. This results in a low degree of randomness in simultaneous data, which is challenging to separate (into its constituent sources) using compressed-sensing-based separation techniques because randomization is key to successful recovery via compressed sensing. We have addressed the challenge of source separation for simultaneous towed-streamer acquisitions via two compressed-sensing-based approaches, i.e., sparsity promotion and rank minimization. We have evaluated the performance of the sparsity-promotion- and rank-minimization-based techniques by simulating two simultaneous towed-streamer acquisition scenarios, i.e., over/under and simultaneous long offset. A field data example from the Gulf of Suez for the over/under acquisition scenario was also developed. We observed that the proposed approaches gave good and comparable recovery qualities of the separated sources, but the rank-minimization technique outperformed the sparsity-promoting technique in terms of the computational time and memory. We also compared these two techniques with the normal-moveout-based median-filtering-type approach, which had comparable results.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.218 · 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
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

Citations58
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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