MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145167443 · doi:10.1190/1.1543224

Latest views of the sparse Radon transform

2003· article· en· W2145167443 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

VenueGeophysics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
FundersWestern Digital
KeywordsRadon transformAlgorithmComputer scienceConjugate gradient methodMissing dataSubspace topologyKrylov subspaceIterative methodMathematical optimizationMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.734
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.183 · 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