Geophysical inversion for 3D contact surface geometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Geologists’ interpretations about the earth typically involve distinct rock units with contacts between them. Three-dimensional geologic models typically comprise surfaces of tessellated polygons that represent the contacts. In contrast, geophysical inversions typically are performed on voxel meshes comprising space-filling elements. Standard minimum-structure voxel inversions recover smooth models, inconsistent with typical geologic interpretations. Various voxel inversion methods have been developed that attempt to produce models more consistent with such interpretations. However, many of those methods involve increased numerical challenges and ultimately the underlying parameterization of the earth is still inconsistent with geologists’ interpretations. Surface geometry inversion (SGI) is a fundamentally different approach that effectively takes some initial surface-based model and alters the position of the contact surfaces to better fit the geophysical data. Many authors have developed SGI methods. In contrast to those, we are the first to develop a method with the following characteristics: we work directly with 3D explicit surfaces from an input geologic model of arbitrary complexity; we incorporate intersection detection methods to avoid unacceptable topological scenarios; we use global optimization strategies and stochastic sampling to solve the inverse problem and aid model assessment; and we use surface subdivision to reduce the number of model parameters, which also provides regularization without adding the complication of trade-off parameters in the objective function. We test our methods on simpler synthetic examples taken from early influential literature, and we demonstrate their typical use on a more complicated example based on a seafloor massive sulfide deposit. Our work provides a geophysical inversion approach that can work directly with 3D surface-based geologic models. With this approach, geophysical and geologic models can share the same parameterization; there is only a single model, with no need to translate information between two inconsistent parameterizations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".