MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2210192932 · doi:10.1121/1.4938232

Ocean acoustic tomography from different receiver geometries using the adjoint method

2015· article· en· W2210192932 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Xiaofeng Zhao, Dongxiao Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of WaterlooNatural Science Foundation of Jiangsu ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsAdjoint equationMathematicsMathematical analysisInverse problemTomographyRegularization (linguistics)Boundary value problemInversion (geology)Applied mathematicsPartial differential equationAcousticsComputer sciencePhysicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, an ocean acoustic tomography inversion using the adjoint method in a shallow water environment is presented. The propagation model used is an implicit Crank-Nicolson finite difference parabolic equation solver with a non-local boundary condition. Unlike previous matched-field processing works using the complex pressure fields as the observations, here, the observed signals are the transmission losses. Based on the code tests of the tangent linear model, the adjoint model, and the gradient, the optimization problem is solved by a gradient-based minimization algorithm. The inversions are performed in numerical simulations for two geometries: one in which hydrophones are sparsely distributed in the horizontal direction, and another in which the hydrophones are distributed vertically. The spacing in both cases is well beyond the half-wavelength threshold at which beamforming could be used. To deal with the ill-posedness of the inverse problem, a linear differential regularization operator of the sound-speed profile is used to smooth the inversion results. The L-curve criterion is adopted to select the regularization parameter, and the optimal value can be easily determined at the elbow of the logarithms of the residual norm of the measured-predicted fields and the norm of the penalty function.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.806
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicUnderwater Acoustics ResearchFrench-language works237,207