MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213239089 · doi:10.1111/1365-2478.13191

A physics‐guided neural network‐based approach to velocity model calibration for microseismic data

2022· article· en· W4213239089 on OpenAlexaff
Hongliang Zhang, Jubran Akram, K. A. Innanen

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Prospecting · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial neural networkMicroseismCalibrationScalingSynthetic dataOperator (biology)Computer scienceAlgorithmGeophysicsPhysicsArtificial intelligenceGeologyMathematicsSeismologyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The physics‐guided neural network framework combines the effectiveness of data‐driven and physics‐based models, and it is, therefore, becoming increasingly popular in geophysical applications. We present a physics‐guided neural network–based approach to calibrate velocity models for microseismic data. In our implementation, the physics‐guided neural network comprises of a user‐selected number of fully connected layers, a scaling and shifting layer and a forward modelling operator layer. We input the observed P‐ and S‐wave arrival times to the neural network. In the forward pass, the network's output layer produces normalized P‐ and S‐wave velocities for the subsurface model. The scaling and shifting layer converts the normalized output to realistic velocity values. The forward modelling operator (i.e. a ray‐shooting algorithm) layer computes traveltimes using the velocities from the preceding scaling and shifting layer and the known source–receiver locations. We then evaluate a loss function that compares the predicted traveltimes with the input observed arrival times, and update network's weights and bias parameters. We also use a weight‐based saliency measure to evaluate whether the selected network architecture (i.e. number of hidden layers and neurons) is optimal for the model calibration problem. Finally, using synthetic data examples, we demonstrate that our unsupervised physics‐guided neural network–based approach can provide robust velocity model and uncertainty estimates.

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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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