Data Uncertainty Estimation in Matched-Field Geoacoustic Inversion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines a variety of approaches to treating unknown data uncertainties in matched-field geoacoustic inversion. Both optimal parameter estimation via misfit minimization and parameter uncertainty estimation via Gibbs sampling are considered. The misfit is based on the likelihood function for Gaussian-distributed errors, which requires specification of the data variance at each frequency. Unfortunately, independent knowledge of variance is rarely available due to unknown theory errors. Many applications of matched-field minimization implicitly assume that variance effects are uniform over frequency; however, this can be a poor assumption as theory errors generally vary with frequency. Parameter uncertainty estimation to date has used fixed maximum-likelihood (ML) variance estimates, which does not account for the variance uncertainty in estimating parameter uncertainties. This paper considers two new approaches to treating data uncertainty in matched-field inversion: Including variances explicitly as additional (nuisance) parameters in the inversion, and treating variances as implicit unknowns by constraining the misfit according to an ML variance formulation (this includes variance uncertainty without increasing the number of unknown parameters). All of the above approaches are compared for realistic synthetic test cases and for shallow-water acoustic data measured in the Mediterranean Sea as part of the PROpagation channel SIMulator experiment (PROSIM'97)
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".