MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2956450012 · doi:10.1093/gji/ggz300

Bayesian joint muographic and gravimetric inversion applied to volcanoes

2019· article· en· W2956450012 on OpenAlexaff
Anne Barnoud, Valérie Cayol, V. Niess, C. Cârloganu, Peter G. Lelièvre, Philippe Labazuy, Eve Le Ménédeu

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Journal International · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersEuropean Regional Development FundAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsHyperparameterA priori and a posterioriStandard deviationSmoothingGaussianGeologySpatial correlationBayesian probabilityAlgorithmComputer scienceMathematicsStatisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY Gravimetry is a technique widely used to image the structure of the Earth. However, inversions are ill-posed and the imaging power of the technique rapidly decreases with depth. To overcome this limitation, muography, a new imaging technique relying on high energy atmospheric muons, has recently been developed. Because muography only provides integrated densities above the detector from a limited number of observation points, inversions are also ill-posed. Previous studies have shown that joint muographic and gravimetric inversions better reconstruct the 3-D density structure of volcanic edifices than independent density inversions. These studies address the ill-posedness of the joint problem by regularizing the solution with respect to a prior density model. However, the obtained solutions depend on some hyperparameters, which are either determined relative to a single test case or rely on ad-hoc parameters. This can lead to inaccurate retrieved models, sometimes associated with artefacts linked to the muon data acquisition. In this study, we use a synthetic example based on the Puy de Dôme volcano to determine a robust method to obtain the resulting model closest to the synthetic model and devoid of acquisition artefacts. We choose a Bayesian approach to include an a priori density model and a smoothing by a Gaussian spatial correlation function relying on two hyperparameters: an a priori density standard deviation and an isotropic spatial correlation length. This approach has the advantage to provide a posteriori standard deviations on the resulting densities. Using our synthetic volcano, we investigate the most reliable criterion to determine the hyperparameters. Our results suggest that k-fold Cross-Validation Sum of Squares and the Leave One Out methods are more robust criteria than the classically used L-curves. The determined hyperparameters allow to overcome the artefacts linked to the data acquisition geometry, even when only a limited number of muon telescopes is available. We also illustrate the behaviour of the inversion in case of offsets in the a priori density or in the data and show that they lead to recognizable structures that help identify them.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations34
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Journal InternationalSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207