Evaluates the ability of quantum and classical models to perform full-waveform inversion (FWI) by predicting subsurface velocity maps from scaled seismic waveform data. It probes the effectiveness of physics-guided data scaling and layer-wise variational quantum circuit designs in geophysical imaging tasks. Use when the user wants to benchmark on FlatVelA, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports SSIM.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill flatvela-fwi-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Flatvela Fwi Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-flatvela-fwi-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: flatvela-fwi-eval
description: Evaluates the ability of quantum and classical models to perform full-waveform inversion (FWI) by predicting subsurface velocity maps from scaled seismic waveform data. It probes the effectiveness of physics-guided data scaling and layer-wise variational quantum circuit designs in geophysical imaging tasks. Use when the user wants to benchmark on FlatVelA, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports SSIM.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2311.12333
bibtex_key: jiang2023qugeo
confidence: high
---
# flatvela-fwi-eval
> QuGeo: An End-to-end Quantum Learning Framework for Geoscience -- A Case Study on Full-Waveform Inversion — Jiang et al. (2023) (arXiv:2311.12333, 2023)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates the ability of quantum and classical models to perform full-waveform inversion (FWI) by predicting subsurface velocity maps from scaled seismic waveform data. It probes the effectiveness of physics-guided data scaling and layer-wise variational quantum circuit designs in geophysical imaging tasks.
## Datasets
- **FlatVelA** — total 500; splits: train (400), test (100)
## Metrics
- `SSIM` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
- Structural Similarity Image Metric, measuring perceptual similarity between predicted and ground-truth velocity maps. Values closer to 1 indicate higher similarity.
- `MSE` — range: other
- Mean Squared Error, calculating the average squared difference between predicted and true velocity values.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Scaled seismic waveform data (dimension 256) for inference; scaled seismic data and ground-truth 8x8 velocity maps for training.
**Output**: Predicted 8x8 velocity map.
## Scoring recipe
```python
For each of the 100 test samples:
pred = model(input_seismic_data)
ssim_val = compute_ssim(pred, ground_truth_velocity_map)
mse_val = compute_mse(pred, ground_truth_velocity_map)
Return mean(ssim_val) and mean(mse_val) across the test set.
```
## Common pitfalls
- Naive downsampling (D-Sample) loses critical physical information, drastically degrading SSIM/MSE compared to physics-guided or CNN-based scaling.
- Models must be compared with matched parameter counts; quantum and classical baselines differ by only 40-60 parameters.
- Metrics are computed on the downsampled 8x8 velocity maps, not the original 70x70 resolution, so absolute error magnitudes are scale-dependent.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> To support training, we split the FlatVelA dataset with 500 samples into a training set (size of 400) and a test set (size of 100). Figure 5(a) is a VQC model obtained in training, where the x-axis and y-axis stand for Structural Similarity Image Metric (SSIM) and Mean Squared Error (MSE), respectively.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{jiang2023qugeo,
title={QuGeo: An End-to-end Quantum Learning Framework for Geoscience -- A Case Study on Full-Waveform Inversion},
author={Jiang et al. (2023)},
year={2023},
note={arXiv:2311.12333}
}
```
- arXiv: 2311.12333
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!