MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210829094 · doi:10.1093/gji/ggac060

Simultaneous Bayesian inversion for effective anisotropy parameters and source locations: a physical modelling study

2022· article· en· W4210829094 on OpenAlexafffund
Hongliang Zhang, Jan Dettmer, Joe Wong, K. A. Innanen

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Journal International · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada First Research Excellence Fund
KeywordsGeologyAnisotropyMicroseismIsotropyMarkov chain Monte CarloSeismologyMonte Carlo methodGeophysicsStatisticsMathematicsPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY Estimating microseismic event locations is important for applications of geophysical monitoring, including hydraulic fracturing and carbon-capture and storage. Field sites for these applications are typically located in sedimentary basins that include finely stratified sediments, particularly around the target depth of the application. The fine stratification causes vertical transverse isotropy (VTI) for seismic wave propagation. In addition, such sediments often exhibit a vertically fractured rock mass that can cause horizontal transverse isotropy (HTI). Therefore, geophysical monitoring can be strongly affected by the occurrence of anisotropy caused by sets of aligned vertical fractures in finely horizontally layered media. While both HTI and VTI theories exist, a more efficient approximation to include both effects is by effective orthorhombic (ORT) models. To account for such anisotropy in microseismic monitoring, we simultaneously estimate ORT parameters, perforation shot locations, and microseismic event locations with Bayesian methods based on direct P-wave arrival times. A comparison to a HTI parametrization is carried out to examine anisotropy-model choice. The quasi-P-wave group velocities in HTI and ORT media are approximated by linearization. Anisotropy parameters are estimated with Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling that includes parallel tempering and principal-component diminishing adaptation to ensure efficient sampling of the parameter space. In contrast to deterministic inversion, our probabilistic non-linear approach includes uncertainty quantification by approximating the posterior probability density with an ensemble of model-parameter sets for effective anisotropy parameters, microseismic event locations, and horizontal locations of perforation shots. The noise standard deviation of P-arrival times is also treated as unknown. The inversion is carried out for simulated data, and for data from a physical laboratory model. In the latter case, an anisotropic layer is represented by a phenolic canvas electric material, and a star-shaped surface-receiver configuration is used to record microseismic signals. Results show that obtaining unbiased event locations requires an appropriate choice of anisotropy model and the ability to resolve anisotropy parameters. The resolution of anisotropy parameters requires significantly more data information from microseismic acquisition than required for isotropic models. Therefore, we study several acquisition scenarios for simulated and laboratory data. Assuming an HTI model in the inversion when data originate from an ORT medium causes systematic errors in event locations. However, appropriate resolution of ORT parameters requires a large acquisition aperture, an accurate perforation-shot timing, and the combination of surface acquisition with a vertical downhole array. These scenarios provide new knowledge about field requirements to produce sufficient information for the resolution of microseismic event locations in the presence of ORT effects in the data.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.303
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Journal InternationalSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207