MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400621065 · doi:10.1190/geo2024-0098.1

Robust unsupervised 5D seismic data reconstruction on regular and irregular grids

2024· article· en· W4400621065 on OpenAlexafffund
Ji Li, Dawei Liu, Daniel Trad, Mauricio D. Sacchi

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Energy
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGridComputer scienceGeologySeismologyRegular gridData miningPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceGeodesy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Seismic data reconstruction has become a central focus in seismic data processing, addressing challenges posed by sparse sampling due to physical and budgetary constraints. The advent of 5D acquisition methodologies marks a significant advancement in the quality and completeness of seismic data sets. Most traditional 5D reconstruction methods commonly use the fast Fourier transform (FFT), requiring regular grids and preliminary 4D binning before 5D interpolation. Discrete Fourier transform and nonequidistant FFT can honor the original irregular coordinates. However, when using exact locations, these methods become computationally expensive. We introduce an unsupervised deep-learning methodology to learn a continuous function across the sampling points in seismic data, facilitating reconstruction on regular and irregular grids. The network comprises a multilayer perceptron with linear layers and element-wise periodic activation functions. It excels at mapping the input coordinates to the corresponding seismic data amplitudes without relying on external training sets. The network’s intrinsic low-frequency bias is crucial in prioritizing acquiring self-similar features over high-frequency and incoherent ones during training. This characteristic mitigates incoherent noise in seismic data, such as random and erratic components. To assess the robustness of the unsupervised reconstruction technique, we conduct comprehensive evaluations using synthetic data examples sampled regularly and irregularly, as well as field-data examples with and without binning. The findings demonstrate the efficacy of our deep-learning framework in achieving resilient and accurate seismic data reconstruction across diverse sampling scenarios.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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