A novel approach to the model appraisal and resolution analysis of regularized geophysical inversion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The existing techniques for appraisal of geophysical inverse images are based on calculating the model resolution and the model covariance matrices. In some applications, however, it becomes desirable to evaluate the upper bounds of the variations in the solution of the inverse problem. It is possible to use the Cauchy inequality for the regularized least-squares inversion to quantify the ability of an experiment to discriminate between two similar models in the presence of noise in the data. We present a new method for resolution analysis based on evaluating the spatial distribution of the upper bounds of the model variations and introduce a new characteristic of geophysical inversion, resolution density, as an inverse of these upper bounds. We derive an efficient numerical technique to compute the resolution density based on the spectral Lanczos decomposition method (SLDM). The methodology was tested on 3D synthetic linear and nonlinear electromagnetic (EM) data inversions, and also to interpret the helicopter-borne EM data collected by INCO Exploration in the Voisey's Bay area of Canada.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".