MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318828615 · doi:10.1190/geo2022-0268.1

Learning to solve the elastic wave equation with Fourier neural operators

2023· article· en· W4318828615 on OpenAlexafffund
Tianze Zhang, Daniel Trad, K. A. Innanen

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicModel Reduction and Neural Networks
Canadian institutionsPenn West Exploration (Canada)University of Calgary
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFourier transformPartial differential equationArtificial neural networkFast Fourier transformIsotropyInverse problemOperator (biology)Kernel (algebra)Inversion (geology)Computer scienceWave equationApplied mathematicsAlgorithmMathematical analysisMathematicsArtificial intelligencePhysicsGeologyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Neural operators are extensions of neural networks, which, through supervised training, learn how to map the complex relationships that exist within the classes of the partial differential equation (PDE). One of these networks, the Fourier neural operator (FNO), has been particularly successful in producing general solutions to PDEs, such as the Navier-Stokes equation. We have formulated an FNO to reproduce solutions of the 2D isotropic elastic wave equation training on synthetic data sets. This requires two significant alterations to the existing FNO structures. By (1) adding the Fourier kernel multiplication with respect to multiple spatial directions and (2) building connections between the Fourier layers, we produce what we refer to as the “one-connection FNO,” which is suitable for use in producing solutions of the elastic wave equation. Post training, the new FNO is examined for accuracy. Compared with the unmodified original FNO, we observe, in particular, an improved prediction of the fields generated with low source frequency, which is suggestive of immediate applicability in inversion. Once trained, the modified FNO operates at approximately 100 times the speed of traditional finite-difference methods on a CPU; this increase in the computational speed, when used within forward modeling, may have important consequences in simulation-intensive inverse problems, such as those based on the Monte Carlo methods.

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.211 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations24
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicModel Reduction and Neural NetworksFrench-language works237,207