MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3023946244 · doi:10.1093/gji/ggaa372

A fast methodology for large-scale focusing inversion of gravity and magnetic data using the structured model matrix and the 2-D fast Fourier transform

2020· article· en· W3023946244 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rosemary A. Renaut, Jarom D. Hogue, Saeed Vatankhah, Shuang Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Journal International · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsInversion (geology)Singular value decompositionToeplitz matrixAlgorithmFourier transformFast Fourier transformMathematicsGridComputer scienceMathematical analysisGeometryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY We discuss the focusing inversion of potential field data for the recovery of sparse subsurface structures from surface measurement data on a uniform grid. For the uniform grid, the model sensitivity matrices have a block Toeplitz Toeplitz block structure for each block of columns related to a fixed depth layer of the subsurface. Then, all forward operations with the sensitivity matrix, or its transpose, are performed using the 2-D fast Fourier transform. Simulations are provided to show that the implementation of the focusing inversion algorithm using the fast Fourier transform is efficient, and that the algorithm can be realized on standard desktop computers with sufficient memory for storage of volumes up to size n ≈ 106. The linear systems of equations arising in the focusing inversion algorithm are solved using either Golub–Kahan bidiagonalization or randomized singular value decomposition algorithms. These two algorithms are contrasted for their efficiency when used to solve large-scale problems with respect to the sizes of the projected subspaces adopted for the solutions of the linear systems. The results confirm earlier studies that the randomized algorithms are to be preferred for the inversion of gravity data, and for data sets of size m it is sufficient to use projected spaces of size approximately m/8. For the inversion of magnetic data sets, we show that it is more efficient to use the Golub–Kahan bidiagonalization, and that it is again sufficient to use projected spaces of size approximately m/8. Simulations support the presented conclusions and are verified for the inversion of a magnetic data set obtained over 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 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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.316
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 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

Citations21
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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