MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404293931 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2024.3496812

Integrated Networks for Viscoelastic FWI: Mapping From Q to Relaxation Variables and Quantifying Modeling Error

2024· article· en· W4404293931 on OpenAlexafffund
Tianze Zhang, Daniel Trad, K. A. Innanen

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTribology and Wear Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsViscoelasticityComputer scienceRemote sensingAlgorithmGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the conventional approach to viscoelastic full waveform inversion (FWI) utilizing the generalized standard linear solid (GSLS) model, the quality factor (Q) is usually not directly inverted. Instead, this method converts Q into a suite of relaxation variables before inversion. Consequently, viscoelastic FWI entails the inversion of both elastic and relaxation models, with a subsequent conversion of relaxation variables back to the Q model to obtain final results. This method is partially due to the accurate intricate relationship between Q values and relaxation variables, where the mapping functions between these two sets are not simple inverses of each other. We introduce an approach that incorporates a multilayer perceptron (MLP) that is pretrained to learn complex mapping from Q values to relaxation variables. This MLP is then seamlessly integrated into a recurrent neural network (RNN)-based GSLS viscoelastic FWI framework, establishing a computational graph, linking Q models and elastic models to data discrepancies, facilitating the direct inversion of both Q and elastic models. To address the inherent uncertainty in the MLP’s mapping process, we apply Monte Carlo (MC) dropout within the neural network, quantifying the uncertainty of converting Q values into relaxation variables. Assuming a constant Q model, this uncertainty quantification method highlights the limited ability of relaxation variables to represent a constant Q model precisely. The feasibility of adapting our method for frequency-variant Q values appears straightforward. We also explore how this limitation, essentially a modeling error, influences the accuracy of forward modeling data. Our numerical results reveal that this modeling error has apparent impacts on the inversion outcomes for both elastic and attenuation models, underscoring the critical nature of this error in the viscoelastic FWI processes.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.752
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote SensingSame topicTribology and Wear AnalysisFrench-language works237,207