Accounting for erroneous electrode data in electrical impedance tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An unfortunate occurrence in experimental measurements with electrical impedance tomography is electrodes which become detached or poorly connected, such that the measured data cannot be used. This paper develops an image reconstruction methodology which allows use of the remaining valid data. A finite element model of the EIT difference imaging forward problem is linearized as z = Hx, where z represents the change in measurements and x the element log conductivity changes. Image reconstruction is represented in terms of a maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimate as x = inv(Htinv(Rn) + inv(Rx))Htinv(Rn)z, where Rx and Rn represent the a priori estimates of image and measurement noise crosscorrelations, respectively. Using this formulation, missing electrode data can be naturally modelled as infinite noise on all measurements using the affected electrodes. Simulations indicate position error and resolution are close (+/- 10%) to the values calculated without missing electrode data as long as the target was further than 10% of the medium diameter from the affected electrode. Applications of this technique to experimental data show good results in terms of removing artefacts from images.
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 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".