MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3090042490 · doi:10.1190/segam2020-3427858.1

FWI Imaging: Full-wavefield imaging through full-waveform inversion

2020· article· en· W3090042490 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zhigang Zhang, Zedong Wu, Zhi-Yuan Wei, Jia‐Wei Mei, Rongxin Huang, Ping Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeismic migrationEnvironmental geologyInversion (geology)Regional geologyPreprocessorComputer scienceMultipleGeophysical imagingGeologyWorkflowEconomic geologyRendering (computer graphics)AlgorithmSeismologyComputer graphics (images)Artificial intelligenceMetamorphic petrologyDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Full wavefield data that includes transmitted waves, primary reflections, and their multiples, has been widely used for velocity model building through full-waveform inversion (FWI). However, migrating full wavefield data to image the subsurface remains very challenging. Higher order scattering energy potentially helps infill illumination holes of primary reflections, but it also introduces crosstalk noise into the migration image when imaging algorithms cannot properly handle this higher order scattering energy. With the advancement of high-performance computing and progress in FWI algorithms to tackle problems such as cycle-skipping and amplitude mismatch, FWI has found success using different data types in a variety of geologic settings. Here we take a step further to modify the FWI workflow to output the subsurface image or reflectivity directly, eliminating the need to go through the time-consuming seismic imaging process that involves preprocessing, velocity model building, and migration. Compared with a conventional reverse-time migration image, the reflectivity image directly output from FWI provides additional structural information with more balanced illumination, since FWI by nature is a least-squares fitting process of the full wavefield data. This paper was accepted into the Technical Program but was not presented at the 2020 SEG Annual Meeting.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.287

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0860.035

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations95
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207