MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2295376119 · doi:10.3997/2214-4609.201413453

Rank Minimization via Alternating Optimization - Seismic Data Interpolation

2015· article· en· W2295376119 on OpenAlex
Óscar López, Rajiv Kumar, Felix J. Herrmann

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceInterpolation (computer graphics)MinificationRank (graph theory)Low-rank approximationMatrix completionAlgorithmMatrix decompositionMatrix (chemical analysis)Optimization problemMathematical optimizationMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Low-rank matrix completion techniques have recently become an effective tool for seismic trace interpolation problems. In this talk, we consider an alternating optimization scheme for nuclear norm minimization and discuss the applications to large scale wave field reconstruction. By adopting a factorization approach to the rank minimization problem we write our low-rank matrix in bi-linear form, and modify this workflow by alternating our optimization to handle a single matrix factor at a time. This allows for a more tractable procedure that can robustly handle large scale, highly oscillatory and critically sub sampled seismic data sets. We demonstrate the potential of this approach with several numerical experiments on a seismic line from the Nelson 2D data set and a frequency slice from the Gulf of Mexico data set.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.354

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.208 · 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