Combining reflection and transmission information in time-lapse velocity inversion: A new hybrid approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Full-waveform inversion (FWI) uses the information of the full wavefield to deliver high-resolution images of the subsurface. Conventional time-lapse FWI primarily uses the transmitted component (diving waves) of the wavefield to reconstruct the low-wavenumber component of the velocity model. This requires large-offset surveys and low-frequency data. When the target of interest is deep, diving waves cannot reach the target and FWI will be dominated by the reflected component of the wavefield. Consequently, the retrieved model resembles a least-squares migration instead of a velocity model. Image-domain methods, especially image-domain wavefield tomography (IDWT), have been developed to obtain a model of time-lapse velocity changes in deeper targets using reflected waves. The method is able to recover models of deep targets. However, it also tends to obtain smeared time-lapse velocity changes. We have developed a form of time-lapse waveform inversion that we call dual-domain time-lapse waveform inversion (DDWI), whose objective function joins FWI and IDWT, combining information from the diving waves in the data-domain FWI term with information from the reflected waves in the image-domain IDWT term. During the nonlinear inversion, the velocity model is updated using constraints from both terms simultaneously. Similar to sequential time-lapse waveform inversion, we start the time-lapse inversion from a baseline model recovered with FWI. We test DDWI on a variety of synthetic models of increasing complexity and find that it can recover time-lapse velocity changes more accurately than when both methods are used independently or sequentially.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".