Modified Gauss-Newton full-waveform inversion explained — Why sparsity-promoting updates do matter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Full-waveform inversion (FWI) can be formulated as a nonlinear least-squares optimization problem. This nonconvex problem can be computationally expensive because it requires repeated solutions of the wave equation. Randomized subsampling techniques allow us to work with small subsets of (monochromatic) source experiments, reducing the computational cost. However, this subsampling may weaken subsurface illumination or introduce subsampling-related incoherent artifacts. These subsampling-related artifacts — in conjunction with the desire to obtain high-fidelity inversion results — motivate us to come up with a technique to regularize this inversion problem. Following earlier work, we have taken advantage of the fact that curvelets represent subsurface models and model perturbations parsimoniously. At first impulse, promoting sparsity on the model directly seemed the most natural way to proceed, but we have determined that in certain cases it can be advantageous to promote sparsity on the Gauss-Newton updates instead. Although constraining the one norm of the descent directions did not change the underlying FWI objective, the constrained model updates remained descent directions, removed subsampling-related artifacts, and improved the overall inversion result. We have empirically observed this phenomenon in situations where the different model updates occurred at roughly the same locations in the curvelet domain. We have further investigated and analyzed this behavior, in which nonlinear inversions benefit from sparsity-promoting constraints on the updates, by means of a set of carefully selected examples including the phase retrieval problem and time-harmonic FWI. In all cases, we have observed a faster decay of the residual and model error as a function of the number of iterations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".