MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Fourier Neural Operator Surrogate Model for nonlinear Electrical Resistivity Tomograph

2025· preprint· en· W4410026911 on OpenAlexaff
Hossein Ghadjari, Pejman Shahsavari, Jan Dettmer, Hersh Gilbert, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNonlinear systemElectrical resistivity and conductivityOperator (biology)TomographyFourier transformFourier seriesPhysicsAlgorithmMathematical analysisMathematicsOpticsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Original Article Electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) is used to infer the subsurface resistivity structure. ERT requires solving a nonlinear inverse problem that is often approximated as linear to reduce computational time. However, the approximation requires assumptions that cause limitations for the data analysis. Most of the computational time is due to the forward problem that requires solving the Poisson equation. Recently, similar forward problems have been shown to be replaceable with a surrogate model of lower computational cost. We present a geoelectric surrogate based on Fourier Neural Operators (FNO) and demonstrate a successful application in nonlinear inversion. The standard deviation of Surrogate prediction errors for unseen samples are <5%. Furthermore, the surrogate reduces computational time by over two orders of magnitude, enabling ERT for previously intractable settings. We apply the surrogate in Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) inversion of simulated data. The results resolve sharp resistivity changes with plausible uncertainties.

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)0.005
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207