Maximum-likelihood and other processors for incoherent and coherent matched-field localization
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
This paper develops a series of maximum-likelihood processors for matched-field source localization given various states of information regarding the frequency and time variation of source amplitude and phase, and compares these with existing approaches to coherent processing with incomplete source knowledge. The comparison involves elucidating each processor's approach to source spectral information within a unifying formulation, which provides a conceptual framework for classifying and comparing processors and explaining their relative performance, as quantified in a numerical study. The maximum-likelihood processors represent optimal estimators given the assumption of Gaussian noise, and are based on analytically maximizing the corresponding likelihood function over explicit unknown source spectral parameters. Cases considered include knowledge of the relative variation in source amplitude over time and/or frequency (e.g., a flat spectrum), and tracking the relative phase variation over time, as well as incoherent and coherent processing. Other approaches considered include the conventional (Bartlett) processor, cross-frequency incoherent processor, pair-wise processor, and coherent normalized processor. Processor performance is quantified as the probability of correct localization from Monte Carlo appraisal over a large number of random realizations of noise, source location, and environmental parameters. Processors are compared as a function of signal-to-noise ratio, number of frequencies, and number of sensors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it