Comparing different approaches of time-lapse seismic inversion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Time-lapse (4D) seismic inversion aims to predict changes in elastic rock properties, such as acoustic impedance, from measured seismic amplitude variations due to hydrocarbon production. Possible approaches for 4D seismic inversion include two classes of method: sequential independent 3D inversions and joint inversion of 4D seismic differences. We compare the standard deterministic methods, such as coloured and model-based inversions, and the probabilistic inversion techniques based on a Bayesian approach. The goal is to compare the sequential independent 3D seismic inversions and the joint 4D inversion using the same type of algorithm (Bayesian method) and to benchmark the results to commonly applied algorithms in time-lapse studies. The model property of interest is the ratio of the acoustic impedances, estimated for the monitor, and base surveys at each location in the model. We apply the methods to a synthetic dataset generated based on the Namorado field (offshore southeast Brazil). Using this controlled dataset, we can evaluate properly the results as the true solution is known. The results show that the Bayesian 4D joint inversion, based on the amplitude difference between seismic surveys, provides more accurate results than sequential independent 3D inversion approaches, and these results are consistent with deterministic methods. The Bayesian 4D joint inversion is relatively easy to apply and provides a confidence interval of the predictions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".