The effects of ignored seabed variability in geoacoustic inversion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geoacoustic inversion using a matched-field inversion algorithm is a well-established technique for estimating the geoacoustic parameters of the seabed. This paper demonstrates how parameter estimation can be affected by unknown or wishfully ignored random range dependence of the true environment when the inversion model is--for practicality--assumed to be range independent. Simulations with controlled statistics were carried out using a simple shallow water model: an isospeed water column over a homogeneous elastic halfspace. The inversion parameters included water depth, compressional speed in the seabed, seabed density, and compressional wave attenuation. On average the environment is range independent: some parameters are constant while other parameters are random with range-independent means and variances. A Parabolic Equation underwater acoustic propagation model is used to calculate the simulated data fields for the range-dependent environment as well as to calculate the model fields for the range-independent inversion model. The Adaptive Simplex Simulated Annealing inversion algorithm is used to estimate the best-fit solution. It is found that ignoring the variability of even a single geoacoustic parameter leads to significant and correlated uncertainty (bias and variance) in the estimation of all inverted parameters. Results are presented for range variation of compressional sound speed and water depth.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".