MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2940893963 · doi:10.1190/geo2018-0410.1

Parameter crosstalk and modeling errors in viscoacoustic seismic full-waveform inversion

2019· article· en· W2940893963 on OpenAlexaff
Scott Keating, K. A. Innanen

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttenuationInversion (geology)WaveformFrequency bandComputer scienceEarth modelAcousticsSeismic waveAlgorithmGeologyPhysicsOpticsSeismologyTelecommunicationsBandwidth (computing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Simultaneous use of data within relatively broad frequency bands is essential to discriminating between velocity and Q errors in the construction of viscoacoustic full-waveform inversion (QFWI) updates. Individual frequencies or narrow bands in isolation cannot provide sufficient information to resolve parameter crosstalk issues in a surface seismic acquisition geometry. At the same time, too broad a frequency band introduces significant problems in the presence of modeling errors. The risk of modeling errors arising in QFWI is high because of the range of very different geologic contributors to attenuation and dispersion and the variety of available mathematical descriptions. We perform numerical tests that suggest that by relaxing the typical requirement that the frequency dependence of the assumed intrinsic attenuation model be self-consistent across the full spectrum, significant improvement in the fidelity of the inversion results can be obtained in cases where the attenuation model assumed in the inversion differs substantially from the true subsurface behavior. We find that the size of the frequency bands used in this inversion approach is a useful hyperparameter controlling trade-off between crosstalk reduction and flexibility in coping with uncertain physics.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.663
Threshold uncertainty score0.748

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 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

Citations42
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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