Bibliographic record
Abstract
Full waveform inversion (FWI) methods can produce high-resolution images of the physical properties of the subsurface. FWI has become a powerful tool for time-lapse or 4D seismic inversion, with applications in the monitoring of reservoir changes with injection and production, and potentially long-term storage of carbon. Current common time-lapse FWI strategies include the parallel strategy (PRS), the sequential strategy (SQS), the double-difference strategy (DDS). PRS time-lapse inversion is affected by convergence differences between the baseline and monitoring inversions, as well as non-repeatable noise and non-repeatable acquisition geometries between surveys. The other strategies are largely efforts to fix the sensitivities of PRS, but robust solutions are still sought. We hypothesize that several problems in time-lapse FWI arise from the independence of step lengths during updating. This is supported by synthetic data tests, which indicate that stepsize-sharing reduces artifacts caused by the variability in PRS convergence. A new strategy, we refer to as stepsize-sharing PRS (SSPRS), are then designed to address these remaining issues. The SSPRS appears to be particularly well-suited for reducing artifacts caused by convergence differences, non-repeated noise, non-repeatable source locations, and biased starting models. This breadth of robustness does not appear in any of the other approaches tested. Especially given that SSPRS through its sharing incurs half of the time cost of seeking stepsizes compared with the PRS and DDS.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".