Three effective inverse Laplace transform algorithms for computing time-domain electromagnetic responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The inverse Laplace transform is one of the methods used to obtain time-domain electromagnetic (EM) responses in geophysics. The Gaver-Stehfest algorithm has so far been the most popular technique to compute the Laplace transform in the context of transient electromagnetics. However, the accuracy of the Gaver-Stehfest algorithm, even when using double-precision arithmetic, is relatively low at late times due to round-off errors. To overcome this issue, we have applied variable-precision arithmetic in the MATLAB computing environment to an implementation of the Gaver-Stehfest algorithm. This approach has proved to be effective in terms of improving accuracy, but it is computationally expensive. In addition, the Gaver-Stehfest algorithm is significantly problem dependent. Therefore, we have turned our attention to two other algorithms for computing inverse Laplace transforms, namely, the Euler and Talbot algorithms. Using as examples the responses for central-loop, fixed-loop, and horizontal electric dipole sources for homogeneous and layered mediums, these two algorithms, implemented using normal double-precision arithmetic, have been shown to provide more accurate results and to be less problem dependent than the standard Gaver-Stehfest algorithm. Furthermore, they have the capacity for yielding more accurate time-domain responses than the cosine and sine transforms for which the frequency-domain responses are obtained by interpolation between a limited number of explicitly computed frequency-domain responses. In addition, the Euler and Talbot algorithms have the potential of requiring fewer Laplace- or frequency-domain function evaluations than do the other transform methods commonly used to compute time-domain EM responses, and thus of providing a more efficient option.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".