Inverse Scattering Series Internal Multiple Attenuation in the Common-Midpoint Domain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Internal multiple prediction remains a high-priority problem in seismic data processing, such as subsurface imaging and quantitative amplitude analysis and inversion, particularly in the common-midpoint (CMP) gathers, which contain multicoverage reflection information of the subsurface. Internal multiples, generated by unknown reflectors in complex environments, can be reconstructed with certain combinations of seismic reflection events using the inverse scattering series internal multiple prediction algorithm, which is usually applied to shot records in source–receiver coordinates. The computational overhead is one of the major challenges limiting the strength of the multidimensional implementation of the prediction algorithm, even in the coupled plane-wave domain. In this paper, we first comprehensively review the plane-wave domain inverse scattering series internal multiple prediction algorithm, and we propose a new scheme of achieving 2D multiple attenuation using a 1.5D prediction algorithm in the CMP domain, which significantly reduces the computational burden. Moreover, we quantify the difference in behavior of the 1.5D prediction algorithm for the shot/receiver and the CMP gathers on tilted strata. Numerical analysis of prediction errors shows that the 1.5D algorithm is more capable of handling dipping generators in the CMP domain than in the shot/receiver gathers, and it is able to predict the accredited traveltimes of internal multiples caused by dipping reflectors with small inclinations. For more complex cases with large inclination, using the 1.5D prediction algorithm, internal multiple predictions fail both in the CMP domain and in the shot/receiver gathers, which require the full 2D prediction algorithm. To attenuate internal multiples in the CMP gathers generated by large-dipping strata, a modified version is proposed based on the full 2D plane-wave domain internal multiple prediction algorithm. The results show that the traveltimes of internal multiples caused by dipping generators seen in the simple benchmark example are correctly predicted in the CMP domain using the modified 2D prediction algorithm.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".