MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2967634416 · doi:10.1190/segam2019-3214777.1

Log-validated waveform inversion of reflection data with wavelet phase and amplitude updating

2019· article· en· W2967634416 on OpenAlexaff
Sergio Romahn, K. A. Innanen, Gary F. Margravé

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaveletAmplitudeInversion (geology)WaveformOffset (computer science)Maxima and minimaAlgorithmComputer scienceWavelet transformReflection (computer programming)GeologyData setSet (abstract data type)SeismologyData miningMathematicsArtificial intelligenceTelecommunicationsOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Waveform inversion is difficult to apply to near-offset surface seismic data, with issues such as the absence of large lateral wavenumbers and diving waves tending to leave iterative methods exposed to local minima. Well-logs can mitigate this issue to some degree, either by supporting the construction of reliable starting models, or, as we show in this paper, by permitting a model-validation step to be included within each iteration. The extra stability conferred by model validation allows one-way wave operators to be used in place of reverse time migration operators in the construction of the update. The approach leads to remarkably accurate results and significant computational savings. Once a log-validated waveform procedure is set up along these lines, we address the unknown-wavelet issue. A process of updating of both the amplitude and phase of an initial wavelet estimate is set up to produce stable inversions in both synthetic and field environments. In the latter case, profiles extracted from a log-validated waveform inversion of the Hussar land data set, when compared to two blind validation wells, are observed to accurately reproduce structures in zones producing significant reflection energy. Presentation Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 Session Start Time: 9:20 AM Presentation Time: 10:10 AM Location: Poster Station 8 Presentation Type: Poster

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)0.007
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.241 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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