MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2620300474 · doi:10.3997/2214-4609.201700506

Mitigating Cycle Skipping in Full Waveform Inversion by Using a Scaled-Sobolev Objective Function

2017· article· en· W2620300474 on OpenAlexaff
M. A. H. Zuberi, R. G. Pratt

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmoothingOffset (computer science)Frequency domainWaveformInversion (geology)MathematicsAlgorithmComputer scienceMathematical analysisStatisticsGeologyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Cycle skipping in the conventional full waveform inversion (FWI) objective function depends on the frequency content of the data, and on the error in the background velocity. The error in background velocity that can be tolerated without skipping cycles is determined by the half cycle criterion. However, the half cycle criterion is offset dependant so that far offsets in the data are more prone to cycle skipping than near offsets. This offset dependence of the half cycle criterion implies that the differentials of residuals with offset can be used as additional constraints in the objective function. In this study we introduce the scaled-Sobolev objective (SSO) that seeks to minimize a smooth version of the data residuals in addition to their derivatives in all data domain dimensions. The smoothing of the data is done using the scaled-Sobolev inner product (SSIP) in the data domain, resulting in an edge-preserving smoothing operator. In the absence of low frequencies, increasing the maximum order of derivatives in SSO is more important than the zeroth order scale factor. Initial results with synthetic data using the Marmousi model show that SSO can overcome a bulk shift in velocity of 30%, with a lowest frequency of 8 Hz.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.855
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedingsSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207