MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2342163728 · doi:10.5539/esr.v5n2p20

Improving Levenberg-Marquardt Algorithm Inversion Result Using Singular Value Decomposition

2016· article· en· W2342163728 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Widodo Widodo, Durra Handri Saputera

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth Science Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLevenberg–Marquardt algorithmSingular value decompositionAlgorithmInversion (geology)Computer scienceMagnetotelluricsProcess (computing)Artificial intelligenceArtificial neural networkGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inversion is a process to determine model parameters from data. In geophysics this process is very important because subsurface image is obtained from this process. There are many inversion algorithms that have been introduced and applied in geophysics problems; one of them is Levenberg-Marquardt (LM) algorithm. In this paper we will present one of LM algorithm application in one-dimensional magnetotelluric (MT) case. The LM algorithm used in this study is improved version of LM algorithm using singular value decomposition (SVD). The result from this algorithm is then compared with the algorithm without SVD in order to understand how much it has been improved. To simplify the comparison, simple synthetic model is used in this study. From this study, the new algorithm can improve the result of the original LM algorithm. In addition, SVD is allowing more parameter analysis to be done in its process. The algorithm created from this study is then used in our modeling program, called MAT1DMT.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth Science ResearchSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207