MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3197058179 · doi:10.1190/segam2021-3583594.1

A tunneling approach for clustered priors in full-waveform inversion

2021· article· en· W3197058179 on OpenAlexaff
Scott Keating, K. A. Innanen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaxima and minimaInversion (geology)Computer scienceCluster analysisPrior probabilityOptimization problemPrior informationGeologyRegularization (linguistics)Data miningAlgorithmSeismologyArtificial intelligenceBayesian probabilityMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While seismic data is an extremely useful source of information, many seismic inversion problems can be difficult or impossible without the use of supplementary prior information. Knowledge of plausible rock-types in a given setting, available from well logs and/or geological understanding, can, in particular, be an effective supplement to seismic data. However, when this prior information describes clustering in rock physics or elastic-parameter properties, it can be difficult to effectively include in full waveform inversion due to the limitations of the local optimization strategies used. In particular, regularization terms based on clustering-type information can create local minima, which are prone to hindering convergence with conventional FWI optimization approaches. Here, we propose an optimization strategy for full waveform inversion, in which global regularization information is partially accounted for, and in which a model can, under the right circumstances, “tunnel” between basins, to honour prior information. This tunneling is implemented in conjunction with conventional, local optimization strategies; after each local model update, a second update follows, in which each grid cell tunnels to a new cluster if the move is warranted by the update history of the model (its “momentum”) and the model regularization penalty (its “potential”). With a synthetic example, we illustrate that this approach offers the potential to improve upon conventional strategies when prior information represents rock-type clustering.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.222
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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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