MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2591496053 · doi:10.1111/1365-2478.12500

Three‐term inversion of prestack seismic data using a weighted <i>l</i><sub>2, 1</sub> mixed norm

2017· article· en· W2591496053 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel Omar Pérez, Danilo R. Velis, Mauricio D. Sacchi

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Prospecting · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersAgencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y TecnológicaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAlgorithmInversion (geology)EstimatorNorm (philosophy)PrestackSparse matrixSynthetic dataSeismic inversionCovariance matrixComputer scienceMathematicsMathematical optimizationGeologyGaussianPhysicsGeometrySeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We present a new inversion method to estimate, from prestack seismic data, blocky P‐ and S‐wave velocity and density images and the associated sparse reflectivity levels. The method uses the three‐term Aki and Richards approximation to linearise the seismic inversion problem. To this end, we adopt a weighted mixed l2, 1‐norm that promotes structured forms of sparsity, thus leading to blocky solutions in time. In addition, our algorithm incorporates a covariance or scale matrix to simultaneously constrain P‐ and S‐wave velocities and density. This a priori information is obtained by nearby well‐log data. We also include a term containing a low‐frequency background model. The l2, 1 mixed norm leads to a convex objective function that can be minimised using proximal algorithms. In particular, we use the fast iterative shrinkage‐thresholding algorithm. A key advantage of this algorithm is that it only requires matrix–vector multiplications and no direct matrix inversion. The latter makes our algorithm numerically stable, easy to apply, and economical in terms of computational cost. Tests on synthetic and field data show that the proposed method, contrarily to conventional l2‐ or l1‐norm regularised solutions, is able to provide consistent blocky and/or sparse estimators of P‐ and S‐wave velocities and density from a noisy and limited number of observations.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations25
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical ProspectingSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207