MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171394717 · doi:10.1109/tap.2009.2027161

Overview and Classification of Some Regularization Techniques for the Gauss-Newton Inversion Method Applied to Inverse Scattering Problems

2009· article· en· W2171394717 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrowave Imaging and Scattering Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegularization (linguistics)Multiplicative functionInversion (geology)Inverse problemApplied mathematicsNonlinear systemMathematicsNewton's methodGaussInverseMathematical optimizationComputer scienceAlgorithmMathematical analysisPhysicsArtificial intelligenceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Different regularization techniques used in conjunction with the Gauss-Newton inversion method for electromagnetic inverse scattering problems are studied and classified into two main categories. The first category attempts to regularize the quadratic form of the nonlinear data misfit cost-functional at different iterations of the Gauss-Newton inversion method. This can be accomplished by utilizing penalty methods or projection methods. The second category tries to regularize the nonlinear data misfit cost-functional before applying the Gauss-Newton inversion method. This type of regularization may be applied via additive, multiplicative or additive-multiplicative terms. We show that these two regularization strategies can be viewed from a single consistent framework.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.234 · 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