MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999090240 · doi:10.1117/12.481510

Novel genetic algorithm for the multiplexed computer-generated hologram with polygonal apertures

2002· article· en· W1999090240 on OpenAlexaff
Jean-Numa Gillet, Yunlong Sheng

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Imaging Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceHolographyAlgorithmGenetic algorithmPolygonal chainDivision (mathematics)Computer-generated holographyMultiplexingOpticsIntegrated circuit layoutLithographyFourier transformHolographic displayComputer graphics (images)MathematicsPhysicsGeometryIntegrated circuitTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A novel genetic algorithm (GA) with a Lamarckian search is proposed for the design of the multiplexed computergenerated hologram (MCGH) with polygonal apertures. The Fraunhofer image of the new MCGH is computed by coherent addition of the subhologram subimages. The subimages are obtained by multiplying the fast Fourier transforms of the subhologram transmittance distributions by layout coefficients computed with the Abbe transform. The division into polygonal apertures is the same for all cells, and defines the polygonal layout of the cells. In our preceding designs of the MCGH with polygonal apertures, only the subhologram transmittances, but not the polygonal layout of the cells, were optimized with our iterative subhologram design algorithm (ISDA). In this paper, we optimize for the first time the polygonal layout of the MCGH cells with a novel GA. For fabrication by e-beam lithography, each cell is composed of a number of stripes. Each stripe is divided into some trapezoidal apertures, which can (i) take a number of different shapes and (ii) belong to a number of different subholograms. The number of possible polygonal layouts for the cells therefore is huge and equal to 264 = 1.85 × 1019 in the case of a MCGH with five subholograms. Each possible layout is coded as a chromosome of bits. Our novel GA performs crossovers and mutations. However, differently from the classical GA, our new GA also uses a Lamarckian search based on a gradient descent, and rapidly determines the optimal polygonal layout for the MCGH cells.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicAdvanced Optical Imaging TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207