Latest views of the sparse Radon transform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Radon transform (RT) suffers from the typical problems of loss of resolution and aliasing that arise as a consequence of incomplete information, including limited aperture and discretization. Sparseness in the Radon domain is a valid and useful criterion for supplying this missing information, equivalent somehow to assuming smooth amplitude variation in the transition between known and unknown (missing) data. Applying this constraint while honoring the data can become a serious challenge for routine seismic processing because of the very limited processing time available, in general, per common midpoint. To develop methods that are robust, easy to use and flexible to adapt to different problems we have to pay attention to a variety of algorithms, operator design, and estimation of the hyperparameters that are responsible for the regularization of the solution. In this paper, we discuss fast implementations for several varieties of RT in the time and frequency domains. An iterative conjugate gradient algorithm with fast Fourier transform multiplication is used in all cases. To preserve the important property of iterative subspace methods of regularizing the solution by the number of iterations, the model weights are incorporated into the operators. This turns out to be of particular importance, and it can be understood in terms of the singular vectors of the weighted transform. The iterative algorithm is stopped according to a general cross validation criterion for subspaces. We apply this idea to several known implementations and compare results in order to better understand differences between, and merits of, these algorithms.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".