MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317105371 · doi:10.1190/segam2012-1288.1

An efficient variable-splitting multiplier method for compressive sensing seismic data reconstruction

2012· article· en· W2317105371 on OpenAlexaff
Chengbo Li, Sam T. Kaplan, Charles C. Mosher

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsConocoPhillips (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompressed sensingComputer scienceAlgorithmOptimization problemMultiplier (economics)Variable (mathematics)ComputationSynthetic dataMathematical optimizationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We use compressive sensing theory for seismic data reconstruction. Compressive sensing, in part, requires an optimization model. We consider two classes of optimization models that have been presented in the compressive sensing literature: synthesis- and analysis-based optimization models. For the analysis-based optimization model, we introduce a novel optimization algorithm, SeisADM. SeisADM adapts the alternating direction method with a variable-splitting technique, taking advantage of the structure intrinsic to the seismic data reconstruction problem to help give an efficient and robust algorithm. We use SeisADM to solve a seismic data reconstruction problem for both synthetic and real data examples. In both cases, we compare the SeisADM results to those obtained from using a synthesis-based optimization model. We use the SPGL1 method to compute the synthesis-based results. We observe, through both examples, that data reconstruction results based on the analysis-based optimization model are more accurate than the results based on the synthesis-based optimization model. In addition, we observe that for seismic data reconstruction, the SeisADM method requires less computation time than the SPGL1 method.

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 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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.515
Threshold uncertainty score0.728

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations15
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSparse and Compressive Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207