MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316998716 · doi:10.3997/2214-4609.201413198

Uncertainty Quantification for Wavefield Reconstruction Inversion

2015· article· en· W2316998716 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

VenueProceedings · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHessian matrixPosterior probabilityDiagonalInversion (geology)Uncertainty quantificationApplied mathematicsGaussianAlgorithmDiagonal matrixMathematicsNewton's methodPrior probabilityMathematical optimizationBayesian probabilityComputer scienceStatisticsPhysicsGeometryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary In this work, we propose a method to quantify the uncertainty of wavefield reconstruction inversion under the framework of Bayesian inference. Unlike the conventional method using the wave equation as the forward mapping, we involve the wave equation misfit in the posterior distribution and propose a new posterior distribution. The negative log-likelihood of the new distribution is less oscillatory than that of the conventional posterior distribution, and its Gauss-Newton Hessian is a diagonal matrix that can be generated without any additional computational cost. We use the diagonal Gauss-Newton Hessian to derive an approximate Gaussian distribution at the maximum likelihood point to quantify the uncertainty. This method makes the uncertainty quantification for WRI computationally tractable and is able to provide reasonable uncertainty analysis based on our numerical results.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.194 · 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