MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128187331 · doi:10.1190/geo2020-0199.1

Direct updating of rock-physics properties using elastic full-waveform inversion

2021· article· en· W3128187331 on OpenAlexafffund
Qi Hu, Scott Keating, K. A. Innanen, Huaizhen Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInversion (geology)AmplitudeIsotropySeismic inversionReservoir modelingGeologySynthetic dataInverse problemAlgorithmGeophysicsComputational physicsPhysicsStatistical physicsMathematicsMathematical analysisGeometryOpticsGeotechnical engineeringSeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Quantitative estimation of rock-physics properties is an important part of reservoir characterization. Most current seismic workflows in this field are based on amplitude variation with offset. Building on recent work on high-resolution multiparameter inversion for reservoir characterization, we have constructed a rock-physics parameterized elastic full-waveform inversion (EFWI) scheme. Within a suitably formed multiparameter EFWI, in this case a 2D frequency-domain isotropic-elastic full-waveform inversion with a truncated Gauss-Newton optimization, any rock-physics model with a well-defined mapping between its parameters and seismic velocity/density can be examined. We select a three-parameter porosity, clay content, and water saturation (PCS) parameterization, and we link them to elastic properties using three representative rock-physics models: the Han empirical model, the Voigt-Reuss-Hill boundary model, and the Kuster and Toksöz inclusion model. Numerical examples suggest that conditioning issues, which make a sequential inversion (in which velocities and density are first determined through EFWI, followed by PCS parameters) unstable, are avoided in this direct approach. Significant variability in inversion fidelity is visible from one rock-physics model to another. However, the response of the inversion to the range of possible numerical optimization and frequency selections, as well as acquisition geometries, varies widely. Water saturation tends to be the most difficult property to recover in all situations examined. This can be explained with radiation pattern analysis, in which very low relative scattering amplitudes from saturation perturbations are observed. An investigation performed with a Bayesian approach illustrates that the introduction of prior information may increase the inversion sensitivity to water saturation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.584
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations21
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207