MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031041217 · doi:10.1109/jlt.2011.2168599

Reduction in the Number of Averages Required in BOTDA Sensors Using Wavelet Denoising Techniques

2011· article· en· W2031041217 on OpenAlexaff
Mohsen Farahani, Michael T. V. Wylie, Eduardo Castillo-Guerra, Bruce G. Colpitts

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Lightwave Technology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Fiber Optic Sensors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaveletNoise reductionComputer scienceReduction (mathematics)Time domainWavelet transformShrinkageArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmComputer visionMathematicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reports on a new mechanism to decrease the number of averages and, consequently, the measurement time of Brillouin optical time-domain analysis (BOTDA) sensors using wavelet shrinkage techniques. Two different wavelet shrinkage techniques, VisuShrink and SureShrink, are applied to denoise signals acquired from measurements in BOTDA sensors. The conventional method to denoise signals in BOTDA sensors is ensemble averaging. Ensemble averaging is a time consuming technique, as it requires many acquisitions of signals to provide an acceptable SNR. To reduce the number of acquisitions, the setup of the BOTDA sensor is modified to denoise acquired signals using VisuShrink or SureShrink before applying ensemble averaging. Experimental results show a significant reduction in the number of averages required to provide an accurate measurement, and consequently, a substantial saving in the measurement time of the sensor. It has been shown that the combination of ensemble averaging with VisuShrink or SureShrink reduces the measurement time of the sensor up to 90%. This reduction in the measurement time enables the implementation of dynamic and fast measurements with BODTA sensors and opens opportunities to target a new range of applications.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.503

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.241 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations76
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Lightwave TechnologySame topicAdvanced Fiber Optic SensorsFrench-language works237,207