2018
DOI: 10.1139/cjes-2017-0208
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On estimation of stopping criteria for iterative solutions of gravity downward continuation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These debates, while important, are not closely related to our thesis, so we will not refute them in detail. However, we do take issue with Popadyev reiterating the historical arguments for the Molodensky system while he, and any reviewers of his paper, have ignored the massive body of work showing that they are no longer valid (Vaníček and Martinec 1994;Martinec and Vaníček 1994;Vaníček et al 1999;Huang et al 2001;Janák and Vaníček 2001;Tenzer et al 2003;Tenzer and Vaníček 2003;Tenzer et al 2005;Kingdon et al 2005;Santos et al 2006;Cheraghi et al 2007;Kingdon et al 2012;Foroughi and Tenzer 2017;Foroughi et al 2017a, b;Janák et al 2017;Goli et al 2018;Foroughi 2018;Foroughi et al 2019;Sheng et al 2019;Vaníček and Santos 2019;Goli et al 2019a, b)-the references indicated come mostly from geodesists who follow the "University of New Brunswick's (UNB) line of thought" (as this is a rebuttal paper) but it is by no means complete, as many other colleagues dedicated to the classical theory validate our assumptions. Among other things, this substantial list of references shows that several quantities Popadyev claims are "unknown" or "unknowable" can be determined with sufficient accuracy.…”
Section: Auxiliary Argumentsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…These debates, while important, are not closely related to our thesis, so we will not refute them in detail. However, we do take issue with Popadyev reiterating the historical arguments for the Molodensky system while he, and any reviewers of his paper, have ignored the massive body of work showing that they are no longer valid (Vaníček and Martinec 1994;Martinec and Vaníček 1994;Vaníček et al 1999;Huang et al 2001;Janák and Vaníček 2001;Tenzer et al 2003;Tenzer and Vaníček 2003;Tenzer et al 2005;Kingdon et al 2005;Santos et al 2006;Cheraghi et al 2007;Kingdon et al 2012;Foroughi and Tenzer 2017;Foroughi et al 2017a, b;Janák et al 2017;Goli et al 2018;Foroughi 2018;Foroughi et al 2019;Sheng et al 2019;Vaníček and Santos 2019;Goli et al 2019a, b)-the references indicated come mostly from geodesists who follow the "University of New Brunswick's (UNB) line of thought" (as this is a rebuttal paper) but it is by no means complete, as many other colleagues dedicated to the classical theory validate our assumptions. Among other things, this substantial list of references shows that several quantities Popadyev claims are "unknown" or "unknowable" can be determined with sufficient accuracy.…”
Section: Auxiliary Argumentsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…The commonly used stopping criterion includes the discrepancy principle [30] and Lcurve methods [31]. The determination of the iteration stopping criterion was usually based on the difference between estimated and observed values, and the estimated statistical data of observed data noise is usually used as the criterion for stopping the iteration process [32]. Chen et al enriched the CGLS method using flexible Krylov subspace technique and non-negative constraints, and proposed for the first time a non-negative flexible CGLS (NN-FCGLS) method.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the continuation near the field source is the inverse problem of the continuation far away from the field source, which is of great discomfort. Therefore, the solution of the continuation is greatly affected by small noise and usually cannot converge stably [6][7][8].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%