MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790989335 · doi:10.1190/geo2017-0275.1

An efficient tomographic inversion method based on the stochastic approximation

2018· article· en· W2790989335 on OpenAlexaff
Mengyao Sun, Mauricio D. Sacchi, Jie Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsInversion (geology)TomographyComputer scienceAlgorithmMathematical optimizationSeismic tomographyNonlinear systemInverse problemSynthetic dataIterative methodMathematicsApplied mathematicsGeologyMathematical analysisPhysicsSeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Near-surface solutions often play a significant role in imaging subsurface structures for land or shallow marine environments. Unfortunately, the standard approach to first-arrival traveltime tomography may involve the inversion of a large number of traveltime picks and require a considerable computational effort. We have improved the efficiency of traveltime tomography by adopting a method inspired by the field of stochastic optimization. First, we verify that traveltime tomography is solvable by two methods in the field of stochastic optimization: the sample average approximation (SAA) and the stochastic approximation (SA). In SAA, random subsets of the whole data are inverted via nonlinear optimization. The final result is the average of all the inverted models. SA is similar to the SAA method. However, in the SA method, new random data subsets are used in each iteration of the nonlinear iterative inversion. The final result is also the average of multiple inversions. We found that SA performs better than the SAA method for traveltime tomography. However, these two methods do not yield substantial improvements in computational turnaround time in comparison with the classic iterative tomographic inversion that uses all data. Therefore, we adopt one realization of the SA method, and we analyze its feasibility via synthetic tests. We call this technique fast SA tomography (FSAT). We design numerical tests to understand the amount of data reduction that one can tolerate before the solution degrades. We also carry out a detailed statistical analysis to understand the impact of FSAT on the solution of the near-surface imaging problem. We apply FSAT to 2D and 3D field data sets, and the results show that FSAT method only requires a small percentage of the total traveltimes to yield a result nearly identical to the model obtained by using all the picks.

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 score0.799
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.233
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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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