MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229456387 · doi:10.1121/10.0010681

Quantifying and transferring environmental uncertainties in underwater acoustic modeling

2022· article· en· W4229456387 on OpenAlexaff
Stan Dosso, Dag Tollefsen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInversion (geology)Markov chain Monte CarloUnderwater acousticsSeabedComputer scienceUnderwaterBayesian probabilityNonlinear systemResidualAlgorithmGeologyArtificial intelligenceOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Uncertainties in environmental inputs represent a major source of uncertainty in underwater acoustic model outputs and applications thereof (e.g., transmission-loss estimation, source localization). Seabed geoacoustic parameters are often estimated by the inversion of ocean acoustic data. Hence, rigorous quantification of geoacoustic inversion uncertainties and the transfer of these uncertainties to modeling applications are of key importance. Uncertainty estimation in geoacoustic inversion is naturally accommodated in a Bayesian formulation, which combines data and prior information to form the posterior probability density (PPD) of seabed parameters. Important components of this approach include quantitative model selection for seabed parameterizations consistent with the information content of the data; an appropriate model for residual data errors that specifies the likelihood function; and nonlinear estimation of the PPD, which is normally carried out using Markov-chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods. MCMC characterizes the PPD using a large ensemble of dependent random samples of the geoacoustic parameters, which can be computationally demanding. However, these uncertainties can be transferred efficiently to subsequent propagation-modeling applications using a much-smaller, randomly chosen (independent) subset from the ensemble. The approach is illustrated using simulations and inversion of ship noise recorded on a horizontal array of hydrophones at the New England Mud Patch.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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