MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891477130 · doi:10.1190/segam2018-2995155.1

Petrophysically guided geophysical inversion using a dynamic Gaussian mixture model prior

2018· article· en· W2891477130 on OpenAlexaff
Thibaut Astic, Douglas W. Oldenburg

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetrophysicsGeologyInversion (geology)GeophysicsInverse problemGaussianSeismologyGeotechnical engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Geophysical inversions are an essential tool for mapping the subsurface. However, the image of the underground retrieved from an inversion rarely benefits from the full range of knowledge. Geologic knowledge concerning petrophysical relationships and geologic features are not easily incorporated into traditional geophysical inversions. By developing the geophysical inverse problem from a probabilistic perspective, we redesign the objective function and the iteration steps as a suite of cyclic optimization problems across the geophysical, petrophysical and geological data, each one benefiting from the others. By quantitatively linking the geophysical, petrophysical and geological data into a single framework, we seek to recover a final inverted model that reproduces the observed petrophysical characteristics and desired geological features while fitting the geophysical data. For this purpose, we propose to replace the Gaussian prior in the Tikhonov approach by a Gaussian mixture model. After each geophysical model update, the mixture parameters are determined by the geophysical model and the expected petrophysical characteristics of the lithologies through another optimization process using the Expectation-Maximization algorithm. We then classify into rock units the model cells according to the petrophysical and geological information. These two steps over the petrophysical and geological data can be understood as a dynamic update of the reference model and weights to represent the knowledge gained at each iteration and guide the inversion towards reproducing the expected petrophysical and geological characteristics. Presentation Date: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 Start Time: 8:30:00 AM Location: 213A (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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.245 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207