MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314349685 · doi:10.1190/1.3513746

High‐resolution three‐term AVO inversion via a Trivariate Cauchy probability distribution

2010· article· en· W2314349685 on OpenAlexaff
Wubshet Alemie, Mauricio D. Sacchi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlind Source Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInversion (geology)Cauchy distributionTerm (time)GeologyProbability distributionMathematicsStatisticsSeismologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three‐term AVO inversion can be used to estimate P‐wave and S‐wave velocities and, in addition, density. The density term, however, exhibits little sensitivity to amplitudes and therefore, its inversion is unstable. One way to stabilize the density term is by including a scale matrix that provides correlation information between the 3 unknown AVO parameters. In this article, we investigate a Bayesian procedure to include sparsity and a scale matrix in the three‐term AVO inversion problem. To this end, we model the prior distribution of the AVO parameters via a Trivariate Cauchy distribution. We present an iterative algorithm to solve the Bayesian inversion and, in addition, we provide comparisons with the classical inversion approach that uses a Multivariate Gaussian prior. It is important to point out that the Multivariate Gaussian prior allows us to include the correlation of the AVO parameters in the solution of the inverse problem. The Trivariate Cauchy prior not only permits us to incorporate correlation but also leads to high resolution (broadband) P‐wave, S‐wave velocities and density perturbations.

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)0.004
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations14
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBlind Source Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207