MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400282065 · doi:10.1190/geo2023-0755.1

Enabling uncertainty quantification in a standard full-waveform inversion method using normalizing flows

2024· article· en· W4400282065 on OpenAlexaff
Changxiao Sun, Alison Malcolm, Rajiv Kumar, Weijian Mao

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsInversion (geology)Computer scienceWaveformUncertainty quantificationAlgorithmGeologySeismologyTelecommunicationsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT To maximize the utility of seismic imaging and inversion results, we need to compute not only a final image but also quantify the uncertainty in the image. Although the most thorough approach to quantify the uncertainty is to use a method such as Markov chain Monte Carlo, which systematically samples the entire posterior distribution, this is often inefficient, and not all applications require a full representation of the posterior. We use normalizing flows (NFs), a machine learning technique to perform uncertainty quantification (UQ) in full-waveform inversion (FWI), specifically for time-lapse data. As with any machine learning algorithm, the NF learns only the mapping from the part of the prior spanned by the training data to the distribution of final models spanned by the training data. Here, we make use of this property to perform UQ efficiently by learning a mapping from the prior to the distribution that characterizes the model perturbations within a specific range. Our approach involves using a range of starting models paired with final models from a standard FWI as training data. Although this does not capture the full posterior of the FWI problem, it enables us to quantify the uncertainties associated with updating from an initial to a final model. Because our target is to perform UQ for time-lapse imaging, we use a local wave-equation solver that allows us to solve the wave equation in a small subset of our entire model, thereby keeping computational costs low. Numerical examples demonstrate that incorporating the training step for NF provides a distribution of model perturbations, which is dependent on a designated prior, to quantify the uncertainty of FWI results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207