Weighted-average time-lapse seismic full-waveform inversion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT As seismic data can contain information over a large spatial area and are sensitive to changes in the properties of the subsurface, seismic imaging has become the standard geophysical monitoring method for many applications such as carbon capture and storage and reservoir monitoring. The availability of practical tools such as full-waveform inversion (FWI) makes time-lapse seismic FWI a promising method for monitoring subsurface changes. However, FWI is a highly ill-posed problem that can generate artifacts. Because the changes in the earth’s properties are typically small in terms of magnitude and spatial extent, discriminating the true time-lapse signature from noise can be challenging. Different strategies have been proposed to address these difficulties. In this study, we propose a weighted-average (WA) inversion to better control the effects of artifacts and differentiate them from the true 4D changes. We further compare five related strategies with synthetic tests on clean and noisy data. The effects of seawater velocity variation on different strategies also are studied as one of the main sources of nonrepeatability. We tested different strategies of time-lapse FWI (TL-FWI) using the Marmousi and the SEG Advanced Modeling time-lapse models. The results indicate that the WA method can provide the best compromise between accuracy and computation time. This method also provides a range of possible answers of other TL-FWI strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".