MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3089829791 · doi:10.1190/segam2020-3427709.1

FWI using reflections for deep velocity model updates

2020· article· en· W3089829791 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yang Yang, J. Ramos-Martínez, N. D. Whitmore, Alejandro Valenciano, Guanghui Huang, Nizar Chemingui

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Full Waveform Inversion (FWI) utilizes refractions and reflections to improve the accuracy and resolution of the earth subsurface models. The use of refractions is limited by the maximum offset of the acquisition, up to their maximum penetration depth. In contrast, reflections can produce deeper updates with small offsets, but they demand robust and more sophisticated algorithms. FWI using reflections needs hard boundaries in the velocity/density models to simulate backscatter energy and generate the velocity sensitivity kernels. Alternatively, one can apply the wave-equation and first-order Born approximation to decompose the seismic wavefields into background and perturbations. Here, we utilize the acoustic wave-equation in terms of vector reflectivity to produce reflections in the modeling engine of FWI. The vector reflectivity wave-equation is derived by parametrizing the variable density acoustic wave-equation. The main advantages of its insertion in the FWI algorithm are the following: it does not require the construction of density/hard boundaries in the velocity model to generate reflections; it allows the use of reflected events without the need of solving two different wave-equations in the forward and backward propagation; it is more accurate than the method based on the first-order Born approximation and perturbation theory. We illustrate with synthetic and field data examples the use of deep reflections to produce FWI updates. Presentation Date: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 Session Start Time: 1:50 PM Presentation Time: 2:40 PM Location: 361F Presentation Type: Oral

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0630.032

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques→French-language works237,207→