Methods for calculating the electrode position Jacobian for impedance imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) or electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) current and measure voltages at the boundary of a domain through electrodes. SIGNIFICANCE: The movement or incorrect placement of electrodes may lead to modelling errors that result in significant reconstructed image artifacts. These errors may be accounted for by allowing for electrode position estimates in the model. Movement may be reconstructed through a first-order approximation, the electrode position Jacobian. A reconstruction that incorporates electrode position estimates and conductivity can significantly reduce image artifacts. Conversely, if electrode position is ignored it can be difficult to distinguish true conductivity changes from reconstruction artifacts which may increase the risk of a flawed interpretation. OBJECTIVE: In this work, we aim to determine the fastest, most accurate approach for estimating the electrode position Jacobian. APPROACH: Four methods of calculating the electrode position Jacobian were evaluated on a homogeneous halfspace. MAIN RESULTS: Results show that Fréchet derivative and rank-one update methods are competitive in computational efficiency but achieve different solutions for certain values of contact impedance and mesh density.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".