MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2509751251 · doi:10.1190/segam2016-13821093.1

Robust and flexible mixed-norm inversion

2016· article· en· W2509751251 on OpenAlexaff
Dominique Fournier, Douglas W. Oldenburg, Kristofer Davis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInversion (geology)Regularization (linguistics)Norm (philosophy)Computer scienceAlgorithmMathematical optimizationApplied mathematicsMathematicsArtificial intelligenceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose a robust mixed-norm regularization method for the inversion of geophysical data. Our regularization function is an improvement over previous methods as it can approximate any lp-norm on the range 0 ≤ p ≤ 2 applied independently to the model and its gradients. The model space can easily be divided into sub-regions with different norms to recover both smooth and compact anomalies. The inversion procedure is implemented by a modified Scaled Iteratively Re-weighted Least Squares (S-IRLS) method, improving the convergence of the algorithm. A rational is also provided for determining an adequate stabilization parameter required by the conventional IRLS method. Sparse norms are applied on a rotated objective function in order to enforce lateral continuity of oriented discrete anomalies. We first illustrate the flexibility of our formulation on a simple 1-D synthetic example. The algorithm is then implemented on an airborne magnetic data set over the Tli Kwi Cho kimberlite complex. Presentation Date: Monday, October 17, 2016 Start Time: 4:10:00 PM Location: 161 Presentation Type: ORAL

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207