MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2212669235 · doi:10.1190/geo2014-0224.1

Efficient pseudo-Gauss-Newton full-waveform inversion in the τ-p domain

2015· article· en· W2212669235 on OpenAlexaff
Wenyong Pan, K. A. Innanen, Gary F. Margravé, Danping Cao

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHessian matrixInversion (geology)AlgorithmDiagonalRate of convergenceComputer scienceMathematicsInverse problemApplied mathematicsMathematical optimizationMathematical analysisGeometryKey (lock)Geology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Full-waveform inversion (FWI) seeks to estimate subsurface elastic properties by iterative minimization of the difference between synthetic and observed data. Its industrial application suffers from several well-defined obstacles, including high computational cost, slow convergence rate, and the phenomenon of cycle skipping. We have developed an efficient τ-p domain waveform inversion aimed at reducing the computational burden of FWI with a phase-encoding technique. The gradient is constructed in the τ-p domain using linear phase-encoding, and a slant update strategy further reduces the computational burden. Poorly scaled and blurred gradient updates can be enhanced using exact or approximate versions of the inverse Hessian, which leads to a faster convergence rate. We developed a new chirp phase-encoding strategy for diagonal Hessian construction. Preconditioning the gradient using the diagonal phase-encoded approximate Hessian forms what we refer to as a pseudo-Gauss-Newton (PGN) step. To test the effectiveness of the τ-p-domain FWI, the strategies were enacted on a modified Marmousi model. We compared the computational cost of the PGN method with traditional methods, and we evaluated the quality of the inversion results. The PGN method can get a better inversion result with the same computational cost. We have also analyzed the effects of different ray parameter settings and the influence of source spacing, and we compared different preconditioning methods for τ-p-domain FWI.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations32
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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