MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092798840 · doi:10.3997/2214-4609.20141164

A Comparison of Different Scaling Methods for Least-squares Migration/inversion

2014· article· en· W2092798840 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHessian matrixRate of convergenceDiagonalLeast-squares function approximationApplied mathematicsMathematicsBlock matrixIdentity matrixInversion (geology)Quasi-Newton methodMathematical optimizationPreconditionInverseDiagonal matrixAlgorithmNewton's methodComputer scienceNonlinear systemEigenvalues and eigenvectorsEstimatorStatisticsPhysicsGeometryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The least-squares inverse strategy is a very important method in estimating the subsurface parameters (e.g. full waveform inversion (FWI)) through an iterative process. The gradient based method suffers from slow convergence rate for assuming the Hessian matrix as an identity matrix. However, direct calculation of the Hessian matrix is prohibitively expensive. Different Hessian approximations have been proposed for computational convenience. In this research, we analyzed and compared different Hessian approximations. And a chirp phase encoding strategy was introduced to construct the diagonal Hessian, compared to linear phase encoding method. These different Hessian approximations can be employed to precondition the gradient and increase the convergence rate of the least-squares 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.751
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.295 · 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