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 OpenAlexaff
Mehran Goharian, Manuchehr Soleimani, Gerald Moran

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 ill-posed 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 Lcurve 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectromagnetic wavesSame topicElectrical and Bioimpedance TomographyFrench-language works237,207