The point-spread function measure of resolution for the 3-D electrical resistivity experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The solution appraisal component of the inverse problem involves investigation of the relationship between our estimated model and the actual model. However, full appraisal is difficult for large 3-D problems such as electrical resistivity tomography (ERT). We tackle the appraisal problem for 3-D ERT via the point-spread functions (PSFs) of the linearized resolution matrix. The PSFs represent the impulse response of the inverse solution and quantify our parameter-specific resolving capability. We implement an iterative least-squares solution of the PSF for the ERT experiment, using on-the-fly calculation of the sensitivity via an adjoint integral equation with stored Green's functions and subgrid reduction. For a synthetic example, analysis of individual PSFs demonstrates the truly 3-D character of the resolution. The PSFs for the ERT experiment are Gaussian-like in shape, with directional asymmetry and significant off-diagonal features. Computation of attributes representative of the blurring and localization of the PSF reveal significant spatial dependence of the resolution with some correlation to the electrode infrastructure. Application to a time-lapse ground-water monitoring experiment demonstrates the utility of the PSF for assessing feature discrimination, predicting artefacts and identifying model dependence of resolution. For a judicious selection of model parameters, we analyse the PSFs and their attributes to quantify the case-specific localized resolving capability and its variability over regions of interest. We observe approximate interborehole resolving capability of less than 1–1.5 m in the vertical direction and less than 1–2.5 m in the horizontal direction. Resolving capability deteriorates significantly outside the electrode infrastructure.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".