MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2890169811 · doi:10.1190/segam2018-2997713.1

Strategies for reducing crosstalk in viscoacoustic full-waveform inversion

2018· article· en· W2890169811 on OpenAlexaff
Scott Keating, K. A. Innanen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInversion (geology)Computer scienceWaveformCrosstalkAmplitudeAttenuationAcousticsGeologyTelecommunicationsSeismologyPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phenomena of seismic attenuation are both harmful to our ability to resolve elastic properties and of interest in their own right for quantitative interpretation. In applying methods of full waveform inversion on land, where low Q values are common in the near surface, and to the determination in general of suites of reservoir elastic properties, accommodation of Q is a complex and important issue. Cross-talk between velocity and Q cannot be easily avoided in full waveform inversion through achievable acquisition geometries. Much of this crosstalk can in principle be eliminated using appropriate optimization techniques in the inversion, but this can be prohibitively costly. We investigate using a multi-resolution inversion, where the number of variables inverted and optimization techniques used change with the frequencies considered, to lower the cost of reducing cross-talk, allowing for more accurate visco-acoustic full waveform inversion. Small numerical examples suggest that this may be a viable means of reducing cross-talk on long wavelength scales. Presentation Date: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 Start Time: 1:50:00 PM Location: 207C (Anaheim Convention Center) 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)0.004
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques→French-language works237,207→