MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889507287 · doi:10.1190/geo2018-0136.1

Automatic blind deconvolution with Toeplitz-structured sparse total least squares

2018· article· en· W2889507287 on OpenAlexaff
Nasser Kazemi

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlind Source Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsBlind deconvolutionDeconvolutionToeplitz matrixAlgorithmWaveletNoise (video)Computer scienceMatrix (chemical analysis)Regularization (linguistics)MathematicsMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Given the noise-corrupted seismic recordings, blind deconvolution simultaneously solves for the reflectivity series and the wavelet. Blind deconvolution can be formulated as a fully perturbed linear regression model and solved by the total least-squares (TLS) algorithm. However, this algorithm performs poorly when the data matrix is a structured matrix and ill-conditioned. In blind deconvolution, the data matrix has a Toeplitz structure and is ill-conditioned. Accordingly, we develop a fully automatic single-channel blind-deconvolution algorithm to improve the performance of the TLS method. The proposed algorithm, called Toeplitz-structured sparse TLS, has no assumptions about the phase of the wavelet. However, it assumes that the reflectivity series is sparse. In addition, to reduce the model space and the number of unknowns, the algorithm benefits from the structural constraints on the data matrix. Our algorithm is an alternating minimization method and uses a generalized cross validation function to define the optimum regularization parameter automatically. Because the generalized cross validation function does not require any prior information about the noise level of the data, our approach is suitable for real-world applications. We validate the proposed technique using synthetic examples. In noise-free data, we achieve a near-optimal recovery of the wavelet and the reflectivity series. For noise-corrupted data with a moderate signal-to-noise ratio (S/N), we found that the algorithm successfully accounts for the noise in its model, resulting in a satisfactory performance. However, the results deteriorate as the S/N and the sparsity level of the data are decreased. We also successfully apply the algorithm to real data. The real-data examples come from 2D and 3D data sets of the Teapot Dome seismic survey.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations26
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicBlind Source Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207