Robust source signature deconvolution and the estimation of primaries by sparse inversion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The past few years had seen some concentrated interest on a particular wavefield-inversion approach to the popular SRME multiple removal technique called Estimation of Primaries by Sparse Inversion (EPSI). EPSI promises greatly improved tolerance to noise, missing data, edge effect, and other physical phenomenon generally not described by the SRME relation (van Groenestijn and Verschuur, 2009a,b). It is based on the premise that it is possible to stably invert for both the primary impulse response and the source signature despite beforehand having no (or very limited) explicit knowledge of latter. The key to successful applications of EPSI, as shown in very recent works (Savels et al., 2010), is a robust way to reconstruct very sparse primary impulse response events as part of the inversion process. Based on the various successful demonstrations in literature, there is a very strong sense that EPSI will also play an important role in future developments of source signature deconvolution and the general recovering of wavefield spectrum.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".