A numerically efficient technique of regional gravity field modeling using Radial Basis Functions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radial Basis Functions (RBFs) have been extensively used in regional gravity and (quasi)geoid modeling. Reliable models require the choice of an optimal number of RBFs and of their parameters. The RBF parameters are typically optimized using a regularization algorithm. Therefore, the determination of the number of RBFs is the most challenging task in the modeling procedure. For this purpose, we design a data processing scheme to optimize the number of RBFs and their parameters simultaneously. Using this scheme, the gravimetric quasi-geoid model can be validated without requiring additional information on the quasi-geoidal geometry obtained from GPS/leveling data. Furthermore, the Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm, used for regularization, is modified to enhance its numerical performance. We demonstrate that these modifications guarantee the convergence of the solution to the global minimum while substantially decreasing the number of iterations. The proposed methodology is evaluated using synthetic gravity data and compared with existing methods for validating the RBF parameterization of the gravity field.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".