MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404319867 · doi:10.1190/geo2024-0087.1

Time-lapse 4D full-waveform inversion for ocean-bottom cable seismic data with seawater velocity changes

2024· article· en· W4404319867 on OpenAlexafffund
Xin Fu, K. A. Innanen, Danping Cao

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryHusky Energy (Canada)
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsGeologyOcean bottomWaveformSeismologyInversion (geology)SeawaterSeabedGeodesyAcousticsGeophysicsOceanographyComputer scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Time-lapse 4D full-waveform inversion (FWI) is a valuable technology for high-resolution imaging of reservoir changes caused by hydrocarbon production and CO2 storage. However, it still faces challenges in dealing with nonrepeatability issues due to changes in seawater or near-surface velocity between baseline and monitor surveys. Despite recent advances, the ability of 4D FWI to address this problem has rarely been demonstrated. We investigate the effectiveness of current 4D FWI strategies, such as the parallel, double-difference, sequential, and common-model strategies (CMS), in resolving nonrepeatability issues for 4D ocean-bottom cable (OBC) seismic data. In addition, a three-stage 4D FWI strategy is developed for 4D OBC seismic data, involving the estimation of seawater velocities in the baseline and monitor models, obtaining a good common starting model, and a final convergence to obtain subsurface 4D changes. The synthetic data tests conducted with varying levels of seawater velocity changes indicate that among the investigated strategies, the CMS performs the best. However, the proposed three-stage strategy surpasses it, emphasizing the importance of accurately estimating seawater velocities for both baseline and monitor inversions in 4D FWI of OBC data.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.797
Threshold uncertainty score0.880

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designNot applicable
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 venueGeophysicsSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207