Comparison of hypocentre locations from the reprocessing of a downhole microseismic dataset
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Focusing on a single vertical‐well microseismic monitoring dataset, the aim here is to objectively look at the hypocentre location determination workflow and compare results from another independent processing effort of the same dataset. To that end, we use the Akaike information criterion–based picker followed by the cross‐correlation‐based refinement for P‐ and S‐wave arrival times. We apply a particle swarm optimization algorithm to calibrate a one‐dimensional velocity model using a single ball‐drop event. Due to the absence of any a priori information, we obtain three different local solutions for the velocity model using the particle swarm optimization algorithm with different upper and lower bounds on the search space. We also use the particle swarm optimization algorithm to determine hypocentre locations for microseismic events. In addition, we perform a waveform‐similarity‐based analysis to identify clusters of closely located microseismic events. Our results show that the hypocentre locations from all three local solutions exhibit similar fracture orientations and dimensions, as compared to the results from another independent processing effort. However, random differences with mean and standard deviation values in x , y , z as (53.9, −23.2, −6.2 m) and (35.5, 42.6, 17.6 m) exist between the two processing versions. These differences can be explained by the combined effect of errors in arrival times, back‐azimuths and velocity models, and the use of different algorithms in the two processing efforts. We also find that the comparison of event clusters other than full event distributions is an effective way of identifying any systematic differences between the two processing results.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".