MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794472926 · doi:10.1190/geo2017-0700.1

Source estimation for wavefield-reconstruction inversion

2018· article· en· W2794472926 on OpenAlexaff
Zhilong Fang, Rongrong Wang, Felix J. Herrmann

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInversion (geology)Computer scienceMaxima and minimaAlgorithmProjection (relational algebra)Mathematical optimizationGeologyMathematicsSeismologyMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Source estimation is essential for all wave-equation-based seismic inversions, including full-waveform inversion (FWI) and the recently proposed wavefield-reconstruction inversion (WRI). When the source estimation is inaccurate, errors will propagate into the predicted data and introduce additional data misfit. As a consequence, inversion results that minimize this data misfit may become erroneous. To mitigate the errors introduced by the incorrect and preestimated sources, an embedded procedure that updates sources along with medium parameters is necessary for the inversion. So far, such a procedure is still missing in the context of WRI, a method that is, in many situations, less prone to local minima related to so-called cycle skipping, compared with FWI through exact data fitting. Although WRI indeed helps to mitigate issues related to cycle skipping by extending the search space with wavefields as auxiliary variables, it relies on having access to the correct source functions. To remove the requirement of having the accurate source functions, we have developed a source-estimation technique specifically designed for WRI. To achieve this task, we consider the source functions as unknown variables and arrive at an objective function that depends on the medium parameters, wavefields, and source functions. During each iteration, we apply the so-called variable projection method to simultaneously project out the source functions and wavefields. After the projection, we obtain a reduced objective function that only depends on the medium parameters and invert for the unknown medium parameters by minimizing this reduced objective. Numerical experiments illustrate that this approach can produce accurate estimates of the unknown medium parameters without any prior information of the source functions.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations31
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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