Robust estimation of primaries by sparse inversion via one-norm minimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT A recently proposed method called estimation of primaries by sparse inversion (EPSI) avoids the need for adaptive subtraction of approximate multiple predictions by directly inverting for the multiple-free subsurface impulse response as a collection of band-limited spikes. Although it can be shown that the correct primary impulse response is obtained through the sparsest possible solution, the original EPSI algorithm was not designed to take advantage of this result, and instead it relies on a multitude of inversion parameters, such as the level of sparsity per gradient update. We proposed and tested a new algorithm, named robust EPSI, in which we make obtaining the sparsest solution an explicit goal. Our approach remains a gradient-based approach like the original algorithm, but it is derived from a new biconvex optimization framework based on an extended basis-pursuit denoising formulation. Furthermore, because it is based on a general framework, robust EPSI can recover the impulse response in transform domains, such as sparsifying curvelet-based representations, without changing the underlying algorithm. We discovered that the sparsity-minimizing objective of our formulation enabled it to operate successfully on a variety of synthetic and field marine data sets without excessive tweaking of inversion parameters. We also found that recovering the solution in alternate sparsity domains can significantly improve the quality of the directly estimated primaries, especially for weaker late-arrival events. In addition, we found that robust EPSI produces a more artifact-free impulse response compared to the original algorithm.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".