MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2748457914 · doi:10.1190/segam2017-17681376.1

Reconstruction of S-waves from low-cost randomized and simultaneous acquisition by joint sparse inversion

2017· article· en· W2748457914 on OpenAlexaff
Ali M. Alfaraj, Felix J. Herrmann, Rajiv Kumar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInversion (geology)Computer scienceJoint (building)Artificial intelligenceAlgorithmGeologyEngineeringSeismologyStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spatial Nyquist sampling rate, which is proportional to the apparent subsurface velocity, is the key deciding cost factor for conventional seismic acquisition. Due to the lower shear wave velocity compared with compressional waves, finer spatial sampling is required to properly record the earlier, which increases the acquisition costs. This is one of the reasons why shear waves are usually not considered in practice. To avoid having the Nyquist criterion as the deciding cost factor and to utilize multicomponent data to its available full extent, we propose acquiring randomly undersampled ocean bottom seismic data. Each component can then be interpolated separately, followed by elastic decomposition to recover up- and down-going S-waves. Instead, we jointly interpolate and decompose the recorded multicomponent data by solving one sparsity promoting optimization problem. This way we ensure that the relative amplitudes of the multicomponent data is preserved. We compare two sparsifying transforms: the curvelet transform and the frequency-wavenumber transform. Another key cost deciding factor for seismic acquisition is the efficiency of acquiring data. This calls for simultaneous acquisition, which requires a source separation step. Similarly, instead of taking a two-step approach, we perform a sparsity-promoting joint source separation decomposition. Results on economically and efficiently acquired synthetic data of both joint methods show their ability of reconstructing accurate up- and down-going S-waves. Presentation Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 Start Time: 3:55 PM Location: 370A Presentation Type: ORAL

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.183 · 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
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 topicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave PropagationFrench-language works237,207