Cooperative constrained inversion of multiple electromagnetic data sets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We evaluated a method for cooperatively inverting multiple electromagnetic (EM) data sets with bound constraints to produce a consistent 3D resistivity model with improved resolution. Field data from the Antonio gold deposit in Peru and synthetic data were used to demonstrate this technique. We first separately inverted field airborne time-domain EM (AEM), controlled-source audio-frequency magnetotellurics (CSAMT), and direct current resistivity measurements. Each individual inversion recovered a resistor related to gold-hosted silica alteration within a relatively conductive background. The outline of the resistor in each inversion was in reasonable agreement with the mapped extent of known near-surface silica alteration. Variations between resistor recoveries in each 3D inversion model motivated a subsequent cooperative method, in which AEM data were inverted sequentially with a combined CSAMT and DC data set. This cooperative approach was first applied to a synthetic inversion over an Antonio-like simulated resistivity model, and the inversion result was both qualitatively and quantitatively closer to the true synthetic model compared to individual inversions. Using the same cooperative method, field data were inverted to produce a model that defined the target resistor while agreeing with all data sets. To test the benefit of borehole constraints, synthetic boreholes were added to the inversion as upper and lower bounds at locations of existing boreholes. The ensuing cooperative constrained synthetic inversion model had the closest match to the true simulated resistivity distribution. Bound constraints from field boreholes were then calculated by a regression relationship among the total sulfur content, alteration type, and resistivity measurements from rock samples and incorporated into the inversion. The resulting cooperative constrained field inversion model clearly imaged the resistive silica zone, extended the area of interpreted alteration, and also highlighted conductive zones within the resistive region potentially linked to sulfide and gold mineralization.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".