Improving the use of the randomized singular value decomposition for the inversion of gravity and magnetic data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The focusing inversion of gravity and magnetic potential-field data using the randomized singular value decomposition (RSVD) method is considered. This approach facilitates tackling the computational challenge that arises in the solution of the inversion problem that uses the standard and accurate approximation of the integral equation kernel. We have developed a comprehensive comparison of the developed methodology for the inversion of magnetic and gravity data. The results verify that there is an important difference between the application of the methodology for gravity and magnetic inversion problems. Specifically, RSVD is dependent on the generation of a rank q approximation to the underlying model matrix, and the results demonstrate that q needs to be larger, for equivalent problem sizes, for the magnetic problem compared to the gravity problem. Without a relatively large q, the dominant singular values of the magnetic model matrix are not well approximated. We determine that this is due to the spectral properties of the matrix. The comparison also shows us how the use of the power iteration embedded within the randomized algorithm improves the quality of the resulting dominant subspace approximation, especially in magnetic inversion, yielding acceptable approximations for smaller choices of q. Further, we evaluate how the differences in spectral properties of the magnetic and gravity input matrices also affect the values that are automatically estimated for the regularization parameter. The algorithm is applied and verified for the inversion of magnetic data obtained over a portion of the Wuskwatim Lake region in Manitoba, Canada.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".