Past, present, and future of geophysical inversion—A new millennium analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Geophysicists have been working on solutions to the inverse problem since the dawn of our profession. An interpreter infers subsurface properties on the basis of observed data sets, such as seismograms or potential field recordings. A rough model of the process that produces the recorded data resides within the interpreter's brain; the interpreter then uses this rough mental model to reconstruct subsurface properties from the observed data. In modern parlance, the inference of subsurface properties from observed data is identified with the solution of a so-called “inverse problem.” In contrast, the “forward problem” consists of the determination of the data that would be recorded for a given subsurface configuration and under the assumption that given laws of physics hold. Until the early 1960s, geophysical inversion was carried out almost exclusively within the geophysicist's brain. Since then, we have learned to make the geophysical inversion process much more quantitative and versatile by recourse to a growing body of theory, along with the computer power to reduce this theory to practice. We should point out the obvious, however, namely that no theory and no computer algorithm can presumably replace the ultimate arbiter who decides whether the results of an inversion make sense or nonsense: the geophysical interpreter. Perhaps our descendants writing a future third Millennium review article can report that a machine has been solving the inverse problem without a human arbiter. For the time being, however, what might be called “unsupervised geophysical inversion” remains but a dream.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".