MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2565316061 · doi:10.1190/tle36010094.1

Constraints versus penalties for edge-preserving full-waveform inversion

2016· article· en· W2565316061 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Bas Peters, Felix J. Herrmann

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Leading Edge · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsClassification of discontinuitiesInversion (geology)PredictabilityGeologyAlgorithmWaveformComputer scienceRegularization (linguistics)GeophysicsMathematical optimizationMathematicsSeismologyMathematical analysisArtificial intelligenceStatisticsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Full-waveform inversion is challenging in complex geologic areas. Even when provided with an accurate starting model, the inversion algorithms often struggle to update the velocity model. Compared with other areas in applied geophysics, including prior information in full-waveform inversion is still in its relative infancy. In part, this is due to the fact that it is difficult to incorporate prior information that relates to geologic settings where strong discontinuities in the velocity model dominate, because these settings call for nonsmooth regularizations. We tackle this problem by including constraints on the spatial variations and value ranges of the inverted velocities, as opposed to adding penalties to the objective, which is more customary in mainstream geophysical inversion. By demonstrating the lack of predictability of edge-preserving inversion when the regularization is in the form of an added penalty term, we advocate the inclusion of constraints instead. Our examples show that the latter leads to more predictable results and to significant improvements in the delineation of salt bodies when these constraints are relaxed gradually in combination with extending the search space to approximately fit the observed data but not the noise.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations51
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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