MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2557536600 · doi:10.1190/tle35121053.1

Rapid 4D FWI using a local wave solver

2016· article· en· W2557536600 on OpenAlexafffund
Alison Malcolm, Bram Willemsen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Leading Edge · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersResearch and Development Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador
KeywordsSolverInversion (geology)ComputationWaveformComputer scienceAlgorithmTime domainWave equationFrequency domainApplied mathematicsMathematical optimizationMathematical analysisMathematicsGeologySeismologyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Much of the computational cost involved in full-waveform inversion comes from the solution of the wave equation in a large domain. These computations must be done for the entire domain through which we expect waves to pass for a particular survey, despite the fact that our region of interest is often significantly smaller. In addition to the wasted time spent propagating waves through less important parts of the model, computing updates on the entire domain may result in slower convergence of the inversion algorithm due to the larger model space. This can be especially important in 4D seismic monitoring, where we often see the majority of changes within a small subregion of the total domain, such as the reservoir. We present a local wave solver that accurately computes the solution of the wave equation within only a subdomain of the region covered by the survey, representing a significant cost saving in the computation of full-waveform inversion. We also show how this solver can improve the resulting velocity estimates in full-waveform inversion for time-lapse applications and observe that the local solver requires fewer iterations to converge than does the full-domain solver.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.187 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
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

Citations26
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Leading EdgeSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207