MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2987004716 · doi:10.22564/16cisbgf2019.015

A residual dictionary learning method for footprint removal from seismic data

2019· article· en· W2987004716 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Julián L. Gómez, Danilo R. Velis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAnomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidad Nacional de La PlataConsejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y TécnicasNova Scotia Department of EnergyRoyal SocietyU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsResidualFootprintComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceDictionary learningGeologyAlgorithmSparse approximation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce a novel dictionary learning strategy for removal of footprint patterns and random noise in seismic data. To this end, we construct an augmented dictionary based solely on the atoms learned from the coherenceconstrained dictionary learning (CDL), a method that is very effective on attenuating random noise. It turns out that when seismic data is contaminated with acquisition and/or processing footprint, the atoms of the learned dictionary are contaminated by coherent noise patterns. Hence, it is necessary to carry out a morphological and/or texture attribute classification of the atoms for effective footprint removal. Instead, the method that we propose relies on an augmented dictionary that is constructed using a simple data-driven empirical mode decomposition (EMD) algorithm, which leads to a dictionary that contains signal atoms and a residual dictionary that contains footprint atoms. This avoids the use of complex statistical classifications strategies to segregate the atoms of the learned dictionary. As in CDL, the proposed method does not require the user to know or adjust the noise level or the sparsity of the solution for each data set. Further, it only requires one pass of CDL dictionary learning and is shown to produce successful transfer learning results in field data. This leads to a speed-up of the denoising processing, since random and coherent noise can be removed without calculating the augmented dictionary for each time slice of the 3D data volume. Results on field data demonstrate effective footprint removal with accurate edge preservation on time slices of 3D seismic poststack data.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 topicAnomaly Detection Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207