MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890542797 · doi:10.1190/segam2018-2986433.1

Error tolerances for ray tracing with adaptive step size control in strongly anisotropic media

2018· article· en· W2890542797 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aurelian Roeser, S. A. Shapiro

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Numerical Methods in Computational Mathematics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRay tracing (physics)Computer scienceAnisotropyAdaptive controlControl (management)AlgorithmOpticsPhysicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seismic ray tracing with adaptive step size control is an efficient alternative to standard ray tracing algorithms with constant step size. We apply the Cash-Karp method to calculate ray trajectories for P-, SH- and SV-waves in a strongly anisotropic velocity model from the Horn River Basin in Canada. The accuracy of the ray trajectories is controlled by location and slowness error tolerances. We analyze their influence on global travel time errors and formulate a general recommendation for error tolerances in typical microseismic settings. The results show that decreasing slowness error tolerances lead to poorer efficiency. We therefore recommend to neglect slowness error toler-ances and perform ray tracing with adaptive step size control only with location error tolerances in the order of 10−6 m, which results in travel time errors in the order of 10−5 s. Presentation Date: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 Start Time: 1:50:00 PM Location: 205A (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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Numerical Methods in Computational MathematicsFrench-language works237,207