Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In this paper, we compare the denoising‐ and inversion‐based deblending methods using Stolt migration operators. We use Stolt operator as a kernel to efficiently compute apex‐shifted hyperbolic Radon transform. Sparsity promoting transforms, such as Radon transform, can focus seismic data into a sparse model to separate signals, remove noise or interpolate missing traces. Therefore, Radon transforms are a suitable tool for either the denoising‐ or the inversion‐based deblending methods. The denoising‐based deblending treats blending interferences as random noise by sorting the data into new gathers, such as common receiver gather. In these gathers, blending interferences exhibit random structures due to the randomization of the source firing times. Alternatively, the inversion‐based deblending treats blending interferences as a signal, and the transform models this signal by incorporating the blending operator to formulate an inversion problem. We compare both methods using a robust inversion algorithm with sparse regularization. Results of synthetic and field data examples show that the inversion‐based deblending can produce more accurate signal separation for highly blended 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".