Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2501.14301 v1 pith:GXOYYVMA submitted 2025-01-24 physics.geo-ph physics.app-ph

A high-resolution discourse on seismic tomography

classification physics.geo-ph physics.app-ph
keywords seismicmodelstomographyarguebestchoicesdataeffort
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Advances in data acquisition and numerical wave simulation have improved tomographic imaging techniques and results, but non-experts may find it difficult to understand which model is best for their needs. This paper is intended for these users. We argue that our notion of best is influenced by the extent to which models satisfy our biases. We explain how the basic types of seismic waves see Earth structure, illustrate the essential strategy of seismic tomography, discuss advanced adaptations such as full-waveform inversion, and emphasize the artistic components of tomography. The compounding effect of a plethora of reasonable, yet subjective choices is a range of models that differ more than their individual uncertainty analyses may suggest. Perhaps counter-intuitively, we argue producing similar tomographic models should not be the goal of seismic tomography. Instead, we promote a Community Monte Carlo effort to assemble a range of dissimilar models based on different modeling approaches and subjective choices, but which explain the seismic data. This effort could serve as input for geodynamic inferences with meaningful seismic uncertainties.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.