Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 time-lapse FWI strategies include the parallel strategy (PRS), the sequential strategy, the double-difference strategy (DDS), the common-model strategy (CMS), and the central-difference strategy (CDS). PRS time-lapse inversion is affected by convergence differences between the baseline and monitoring inversions, as well as nonrepeatable noise and nonrepeatable 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. Two strategies, which we refer to as stepsize-sharing PRS (SSPRS) and stepsize-sharing CMS, are then designed to address these remaining issues. In this paper, we have tested our methods in five scenarios, including noise-free data, nonrepeated noises, nonrepeatable source positions, biased starting models, and a combination of the latter three. The comparisons between the SSPRS and other strategies indicate that the SSPRS can adapt to all tested scenarios well. Especially, except for the DDS which is extremely sensitive to the nonrepeatable source positions, only the SSPRS can provide meaningful results in the latter two scenarios when compared with others. Furthermore, given that SSPRS through its sharing incurs half of the time cost of seeking stepsizes compared with the PRS and DDS, the total computational cost of SSPRS is less than half of that of the CMS and CDS.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 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; 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".