MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2516096125 · doi:10.1190/segam2016-13957039.1

Reducing under-sampling artifacts in 3D true-amplitude RTM angle gathers

2016· article· en· W2516096125 on OpenAlexaff
Yilong Qin, Marcel Nauta, Scott Quiring

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsAcceleware (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSampling (signal processing)AmplitudeComputer visionPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High resolution true-amplitude RTM Angle-Domain Common Image Gathers (ADCIGs), indexed by subsurface reflection and azimuth angles, can be used for:Evaluation of complex velocity models with multiple arrivalsMore reliable automatic picking of event curvature for tomographic inversionAngle-domain NMO de-stretchAzimuthal AVA analysisAzimuthal anisotropy analysisAngle-dependent subsurface illumination compensationOptimal adaptive stackingMultiple attenuation in subsalt areaImpedance and velocity inversionScattering-angle filtering for FWIRemoval of RTM backscattered low-frequency noise. In practice, the coarsely-sampled or irregularly-sampled shot and receiver locations on the surface leads to severe under-sampling artifacts in ADCIGs with small angle binning size. These under-sampling artifacts are worse for the shallow reflectors and small reflection angle in the case of 3D data. In this paper, we first derive that the theoretical number of hitcount for each angle bin is given by the determinant of the Jacobian matrix of transforming subsurface angle to surface shot coordinates. Then we illustrate that the under-sampling artifacts are linearly proportional to the percentage deviation of actual hitcount number with respect to the theoretical hitcount number. At last, we propose using relative hitcount compensation to reduce the under-sampling artifacts for RTM 3D ADCIGs, and demonstrate its effectiveness on 3D synthetic. Presentation Date: Monday, October 17, 2016 Start Time: 4:10:00 PM Location: Lobby D/C Presentation Type: POSTER

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)0.010
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques→French-language works237,207→