3D magnetic data-space inversion with sparseness constraints
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract I have developed an inversion approach that determines a 3D susceptibility distribution that produces a given magnetic anomaly. The subsurface model consists of a 3D, equally spaced array of dipoles. The inversion incorporates a model norm that enforces sparseness and depth weighting of the solution. Sparseness is imposed by using the Cauchy norm on model parameters. The inverse problem is posed in the data space, leading to a linear system of equations with dimensions based on the number of data, N. This contrasts with the standard least-squares solution, derived through operations within the M-dimensional model space (M being the number of model parameters). Hence, the data-space method combined with a conjugate gradient algorithm leads to computational efficiency by dealing with an N×N system versus an M×M one, where N≪M. Tests on synthetic data show that sparse inversion produces a much more focused solution compared with a standard model-space, least-squares inversion. The inversion of aeromagnetic data collected over a Precambrian Shield area again shows that including the sparseness constraint leads to a simpler and better resolved solution. The degree of improvement in model resolution for the sparse case is quantified using the resolution matrix.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it