Enhanced Multi-Dimensional Inversion Through Target-Specific Inversion Parameter Bounds With an Application to Crosswell Electromagnetic for Sequestration Monitoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In geophysical inversions, lower and upper model parameter bounds are a means of solution stabilization. Further, constraints that intend to let only geologically plausible inverse solutions pass are amenable to lower and upper bounds. Reliable prior information is paramount to construct such bound constraints. It is common practice to narrow and widen bound intervals for regions of, respectively, more and less certain prior information. Contrary to this practice, we experiment with widened bound intervals in zones that are poorly resolved by a given survey configuration but where prior information would suggest structural anomalies of interest. The purpose of enlarged parameter bounds that correlate spatially with predefined targets is to let the inversion explore a larger solution space, thus increasing the potential to resolve otherwise hidden anomalies. Application of the method is based on a carbon-sequestration baseline (pre-injection) crosswell electromagnetic (EM) field survey at the Containment and Monitoring Institute Field Research Station (Alberta, Canada), where impeded measurements led to generally reduced sensitivities for the interwell region. Synthetic-data proofs of concept use augmented bounds designed to boost the resolution of artificial plume targets, indicating an enhanced illumination compared to constant bounds. Comparative field data inversions with spatially variable bounds constructed from prior resistivity and velocity information highlight non-horizontal baseline structures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".