MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2755929137 · doi:10.1190/geo2017-0105.1

Multicomponent seismic data registration by nonlinear optimization

2017· article· en· W2755929137 on OpenAlexafffund
Wenlei Gao, Mauricio D. Sacchi

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsMonotonic functionImage warpingSmoothingInversion (geology)Computer scienceAlgorithmNonlinear systemMaxima and minimaOptimization problemApplied mathematicsMathematical optimizationMathematicsMathematical analysisGeologyArtificial intelligenceSeismologyPhysicsComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mapping PS-wave data to the PP-wave time domain is a critical step before joint PP- and PS-wave data interpretation and inversion. Registration techniques are often constrained by having access to a known [Formula: see text] ratio. When an accurate [Formula: see text] ratio is not provided, one can solve the problem of seismic data registration by minimizing the difference between the PP-wave and the warped PS-wave data with a smoothing constraint applied on the warping function. To avoid undesirable foldings or rapid changes in the warped PS-wave image, we require a warping function that is monotonic and smooth. We invert the [Formula: see text] ratio directly from PP- and PS-wave data instead of estimating it from the warping function. Seismic data registration is posed as a constrained nonlinear optimization problem. Furthermore, we represent the [Formula: see text] ratio by spline functions and adopt a parameterization that guarantees monotonic warping functions. Our parameterization in terms of splines significantly reduces the number of unknowns of our problem, and the convergence to a smooth monotonic solution is guaranteed.

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 score0.927
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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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