Viewing angle enhancement for two- and three-dimensional holographic displays with random superresolution phase masks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Holographic displays employing binary phase modulation have been demonstrated to be attractive on the grounds of efficiency and miniaturization, and they offer a plausible approach to two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) image projection and display. A novel algorithm--one-step phase retrieval--and corresponding hardware architecture have recently been proposed, providing the performance required for real-time holographic display. However, since viewing angle varies inversely with pixel size, very small display pixels are required to achieve a wide field of view. This is particularly problematic for 3D displays, as the requirement for a large display with small pixels has hitherto necessitated an unachievably large electrical bandwidth. We present a novel approach, utilizing fixed random pixelated quaternary phase masks of greater resolution than the displayed hologram, to dramatically increase the viewing angle for 2D and 3D holographic displays without incurring a bandwidth penalty or significantly degrading image quality. Furthermore, an algorithm is presented to generate holograms accounting for the presence of such a phase mask, so that only one mask is required.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it