Large‐scale 3D inversion of potential field data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Inversion of gravity and/or magnetic data attempts to recover the density and/or magnetic susceptibility distribution in a 3D earth model for subsequent geological interpretation. This is a challenging problem for a number of reasons. First, airborne gravity and magnetic surveys are characterized by very large data volumes. Second, the 3D modelling of data from large‐scale surveys is a computationally challenging problem. Third, gravity and magnetic data are finite and noisy and their inversion is ill posed so regularization must be introduced for the recovery of the most geologically plausible solutions from an infinite number of mathematically equivalent solutions. These difficulties and how they can be addressed in terms of large‐scale 3D potential field inversion are discussed in this paper. Since potential fields are linear, they lend themselves to full parallelization with near‐linear scaling on modern parallel computers. Moreover, we exploit the fact that an instrument’s sensitivity (or footprint) is considerably smaller than the survey area. As multiple footprints superimpose themselves over the same 3D earth model, the sensitivity matrix for the entire earth model is constructed. We use the re‐weighted regularized conjugate gradient method for minimizing the objective functional and incorporate a wide variety of regularization options. We demonstrate our approach with the 3D inversion of 1743 line km of FALCON gravity gradiometry and magnetic data acquired over the Timmins district in Ontario, Canada. Our results are shown to be in good agreement with independent interpretations of the same 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".