Quantifying uncertainty in geoacoustic inversion. II. Application to broadband, shallow-water data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper applies the new method of fast Gibbs sampling (FGS) to estimate the uncertainties of seabed geoacoustic parameters in a broadband, shallow-water acoustic survey, with the goal of interpreting the survey results and validating the method for experimental data. FGS applies a Bayesian approach to geoacoustic inversion based on sampling the posterior probability density to estimate marginal probability distributions and parameter covariances. This requires knowledge of the statistical distribution of the data errors, including both measurement and theory errors, which is generally not available. Invoking the simplifying assumption of independent, identically distributed Gaussian errors allows a maximum-likelihood estimate of the data variance and leads to a practical inversion algorithm. However, it is necessary to validate these assumptions, i.e., to verify that the parameter uncertainties obtained represent meaningful estimates. To this end, FGS is applied to a geoacoustic experiment carried out at a site off the west coast of Italy where previous acoustic and geophysical studies have been performed. The parameter uncertainties estimated via FGS are validated by comparison with: (i) the variability in the results of inverting multiple independent data sets collected during the experiment; (ii) the results of FGS inversion of synthetic test cases designed to simulate the experiment and data errors; and (iii) the available geophysical ground truth. Comparisons are carried out for a number of different source bandwidths, ranges, and levels of prior information, and indicate that FGS provides reliable and stable uncertainty estimates for the geoacoustic inverse problem.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".