MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086933291 · doi:10.1121/1.429338

Regularized matched-mode processing for source localization

2000· article· en· W2086933291 on OpenAlexaff
Nicole E. Collison, Stan E. Dosso

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReplicaComputer scienceGridModalA priori and a posterioriUnderdetermined systemInverse problemAlgorithmInversion (geology)Point sourceSignal processingAcousticsMathematicsMathematical analysisPhysicsOpticsTelecommunicationsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper develops a new approach to matched-mode processing (MMP) for ocean acoustic source localization. MMP consists of decomposing far-field acoustic data measured at an array of sensors to obtain the excitations of the propagating modes, then matching these with modeled replica excitations computed for a grid of possible source locations. However, modal decomposition can be ill-posed and unstable if the sensor array does not provide an adequate spatial sampling of the acoustic field (i.e., the problem is underdetermined). For such cases, standard decomposition methods yield minimum-norm solutions that are biased towards zero. Although these methods provide a mathematical solution (i.e., a stable solution that fits the data), they may not represent the most physically meaningful solution. The new approach of regularized matched-mode processing (RMMP) carries out an independent modal decomposition prior to comparison with the replica excitations for each grid point, using the replica itself as the a priori estimate in a regularized inversion. For grid points at or near the source location, this should provide a more physically meaningful decomposition; at other points, the procedure provides a stable inversion. In this paper, RMMP is compared to standard MMP and matched-field processing for a series of realistic synthetic test cases, including a variety of noise levels and sensor array configurations, as well as the effects of environmental mismatch.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicUnderwater Acoustics ResearchFrench-language works237,207