MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152716935 · doi:10.2528/pier09052003

A TRUST REGION SUBPROBLEM FOR 3D ELECTRICAL IMPEDANCE TOMOGRAPHY INVERSE PROBLEM USING EXPERIMENTAL DATA

2009· article· en· W2152716935 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

VenueElectromagnetic waves · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical and Bioimpedance Tomography
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrical impedance tomographyInverse problemTomographyInverseElectrical impedanceTrust regionComputer sciencePhysicsMathematicsMathematical analysisEngineeringElectrical engineeringGeometryOpticsComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Image reconstruction in electrical impedance tomography (EIT) is an ill-posed nonlinear inverse problem. Regularization methods are needed to solve this problem. The results of the illposed EIT problem strongly depends on noise level in measured data as well as regularization parameter. In this paper, we present trust region subproblem (TRS), with the use of L-curve maximum curvature criteria to find a regularization parameter. Currently Krylov subspace methods especially conjugate gradient least squares (CGLS) are used for large scale 3D problem. CGLS is an efficient technique when the norm of measured noise is exactly known. This paper demonstrates that CGLS and TRS converge to the same point on the L-curve with the same noise level. TRS can be implemented efficiently for large scale inverse EIT problem as CGLS with no need a priori knowledge of the noise level.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.839
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.226 · 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