<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Work on Benjamin Moyer</title><link>https://bmoyer.net/work/</link><description>Recent content in Work on Benjamin Moyer</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://bmoyer.net/work/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Single-station scalar moment estimation</title><link>https://bmoyer.net/work/single-station-moment/</link><pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://bmoyer.net/work/single-station-moment/</guid><description>Magnitude estimation normally requires a network. Where the network is sparse — much of the southern hemisphere, the oceans, and anywhere a monitoring problem is hardest — you may have one station and a few minutes.
This work asks how well a single three-component record can constrain scalar moment, and more importantly how honestly the uncertainty on that estimate can be reported. A deep ensemble produces a predictive distribution rather than a point value, and the estimates are pooled across whatever stations happen to have returned data.</description></item><item><title>Trans-dimensional gravity and magnetic inversion</title><link>https://bmoyer.net/work/gravity-magnetics/</link><pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://bmoyer.net/work/gravity-magnetics/</guid><description>This page is a stub. Fuller writeup, figures, and code links to follow.
Potential-field inversion is badly non-unique: many subsurface density and susceptibility distributions produce the same measurements at the surface. The usual response is to fix a parameterisation in advance and regularise toward it, which produces a tidy answer and hides the question of how much of that answer the data actually supports.
Trans-dimensional Bayesian inversion treats the number of parameters as unknown and infers it alongside everything else, so the resolution of the result is a posterior quantity rather than a modelling choice.</description></item></channel></rss>