Automatic velocity analysis using convolutional neural network and transfer learning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Velocity analysis can be a time-consuming task when performed manually. Methods have been proposed to automate the process of velocity analysis, which, however, typically requires significant manual effort. We have developed a convolutional neural network (CNN) to estimate stacking velocities directly from the semblance. Our CNN model uses two images as one input data for training. One is an entire semblance (guide image), and the other is a small patch (target image) extracted from the semblance at a specific time step. Labels for each input data set are the root mean square velocities. We generate the training data set using synthetic data. After training the CNN model with synthetic data, we test the trained model with another synthetic data that were not used in the training step. The results indicate that the model can predict a consistent velocity model. We also noticed that when the input data are extremely different from those used for the training, the CNN model will hardly pick the correct velocities. In this case, we adopt transfer learning to update the trained model (base model) with a small portion of the target data to improve the accuracy of the predicted velocity model. A marine data set from the Gulf of Mexico is used for validating our new model. The updated model performed a reasonable velocity analysis in seconds.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it