Amplitude variation with offset inversion using acoustic-elastic local solver
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Conventional amplitude variation with offset (AVO) inversion analysis uses the Zoeppritz equations, which are based on a plane-wave approximation. However, because real seismic data are created by point sources, wave reflections are better modeled by spherical waves than by plane waves. Indeed, spherical reflection coefficients deviate from planar reflection coefficients near the critical and postcritical angles, which implies that the Zoeppritz equations are not applicable for angles close to critical reflection in AVO analysis. Elastic finite-difference simulations provide a solution to the limitations of the Zoeppritz approximation because they can handle near- and postcritical reflections. We have used a coupled acoustic-elastic local solver that approximates the wavefield with high accuracy within a locally perturbed elastic subdomain of the acoustic full domain. Using this acoustic-elastic local solver, the local wavefield generation and inversion are much faster than performing a full-domain elastic inversion. We use this technique to model wavefields and to demonstrate that the amplitude from within the local domain can be used as a constraint in the inversion to recover elastic material properties. Then, we focus on understanding how much the amplitude and phase contribute to the reconstruction accuracy of the elastic material parameters (VP, VS, and ρ). Our results suggest that the combination of amplitude and phase in the inversion helps with the convergence. Finally, we analyze elastic parameter trade-offs in AVO inversion, from which we find that to recover accurate P-wave velocities we should invert for VP and VS simultaneously with fixed density.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".