Tuomo Valkonen

@tuomov
3 Followers
10 Following
18 Posts

I write about rot. Maybe, perhaps, occasionally, something educative as well. But, mainly, the rot all around us.

And how to try to fix it.

Websitehttps://tuomov.iki.fi/
Show threadTuomo Valkonen18h ago
︙
Our main theoretical contribution is the stability analysis of the convection--diffusion equation with respect to its parameters: the measure, and the convection and diffusion fields. Numerically, we employ a semi-grid-free #optimization approach for reconstructing the source measure. Our experiments demonstrate accurate localisation, highlighting the potential of the method for practical gas emission detection.
Show threadTuomo Valkonen18h ago
︙
Abstract: We study the #InverseProblem of locating gas leaks from line-of-sight concentration measurements using a convection–diffusion model with the source term a Radon measure. By imposing sparsity-promoting regularisation on this measure, we recover point sources—identifying both their locations and intensities—rather than diffuse approximations. We jointly estimate the underlying physical convection (wind) and diffusion parameters.
⋮
Tuomo Valkonen18h ago

New research: Dang & Valkonen - Leak localisation with a measure source convection–diffusion model

https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.12095

#inverseproblems
#optimisation

︙

Leak localisation with a measure source convection-diffusion model

We study the inverse problem of locating gas leaks from line-of-sight concentration measurements using a convection-diffusion model with the source term a Radon measure. By imposing sparsity-promoting regularisation on this measure, we recover point sources - identifying both their locations and intensities - rather than diffuse approximations. We jointly estimate the underlying physical convection (wind) and diffusion parameters. Our main theoretical contribution is the stability analysis of the convection-diffusion equation with respect to its parameters: the measure, and the convection and diffusion fields. Numerically, we employ a semi-grid-free optimisation approach for reconstructing the source measure. Our experiments demonstrate accurate localisation, highlighting the potential of the method for practical gas emission detection.

arXiv.org
Show threadTuomo Valkonen2d ago

What is the alternative then, you ask? The story itself shows the alternative: posterior #OrganicPeerView based on real use, not bureaucracy.

https://mastodon.social/@tuomov/116548197725315189

Tuomo Valkonen2d ago
More junk research *not* caught by entirely dysfunctional peer review. Bureaucratic #PeerReview is a scam. https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/05/influential-study-touting-chatgpt-in-education-retracted-over-red-flags/
Influential study touting ChatGPT in education retracted over red flags

The retracted study on ChatGPT in education was already cited hundreds of times.

Ars Technica
Tuomo Valkonen2d ago

RE: https://mastodon.social/@tuomov/116548180733833581

I am exploring writing as one possible escape from #EPNEcuador (Escuela Politécnica Nacional)—a former university with now-buried ambitions of becoming an “university of excellence,” rapidly devolving into a village school.

My first story returns to something that I left a long time ago – #Linux and #OpenSource – but recently tried to return to, only to find that it had not improved at all, being just as rotten as the #academia.

That, too, will be touched upon in future posts.

Show threadTuomo Valkonen3d ago
Cory Doctorow's concept of #enshittification (of tech, life, the universe, and everything), extends to the scientific environment as well, only it's not evil techno-feudalists (only) behind it, but the entire so-called community is swindling itself.
Show threadTuomo Valkonen3d ago

My own students are better referees; they find errors, they tell exactly what they didn't understand.

Most of the errors I find myself, though, when using the paper later. That is one more reason why papers shouldn't be static; scientific works should be living projects, like #OpenSource.

🧵

Show threadTuomo Valkonen3d ago

An unaccountable anonymous rando evaluating whether they themselves are interested in the work (and, yes, I may be the rando that dissed your paper after it wasn't all that it seemed to be), instead of its correctness and novelty, which is all that should be required. History will decide the rest.

🧵

Show threadTuomo Valkonen3d ago

I think that is better achieved with living works, instead of static papers—at least no longer printed on dead trees 🪵.

Formal peer review, with some exceptions, has become useless nitpicking—hurried after a glacial wait.

🧵