MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2624177826 · doi:10.1121/1.4987215

Model selection for profile structure in Bayesian geoacoustic inversion

2017· article· en· W2624177826 on OpenAlexaff
Stan E. Dosso, Hefeng Dong, Kenneth Duffaut

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeabedInversion (geology)Bayesian probabilityGeologyPolynomialParallel temperingAlgorithmComputer scienceMathematicsMathematical analysisStatisticsSeismologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper considers model selection in Bayesian geoacoustic inversion, specifically, the role of seabed parameterization in resolving geoacoustic profile structure. Bayesian inversion is formulated in terms of the posterior probability density (PPD) over the model parameters which are sampled numerically: Metropolis-Hastings sampling in principal-component space enhanced by parallel tempering is employed here. A key aspect of quantitative geoacoustic inversion is that of parameterizing the seabed model. Trans-dimensional (trans-D) inversion methods model the seabed as a sequence of discontinuous uniform layers and sample probabilistically over the number of layers. However, in some cases it may be expected for seabed properties to vary as smooth, continuous gradients which are not well represented by uniform layers. Most gradient-based inversions assume a representative functional form, such as a power law. A recent alternative is based on a linear combination of Bernstein-polynomial basis functions. This approach is more general and allows the form of the profile to be determined by the data, rather than by a subjective model choice. This paper compares trans-D, power-law, and Bernstein-polynomial inversions for the problem of estimating seabed shear-wave speed profiles from the dispersion of interface waves. Simulations and data from Oslofjorden and/or the North Sea will be considered.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.876
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.247 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicUnderwater Acoustics ResearchFrench-language works237,207