MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037455125 · doi:10.1117/12.870999

Lens solutions which increase manufacturing yield

2010· article· en· W2037455125 on OpenAlexaff
Stan Szapiel, Catherine Greenhalgh

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsRaytheon Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDesign for manufacturabilityLens (geology)Center of gravityPoint (geometry)Computer scienceYield (engineering)Monte Carlo methodPosition (finance)AlgorithmMathematical optimizationMathematicsEngineeringStatisticsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The classic method of design centering commonly used to increase the yield of electronic circuits is employed to improve manufacturability of complex lens designs. The approach uses the results of Monte Carlo (MC) statistics to iteratively center the nominal design on a new point that shows an improved yield. Rather than just employing the MC lens run for routine as-built performance forecast, the results of the simulation are re-used to find the changes in the nominal design parameters values which will increase the yield. The centers-of-gravity (COG) algorithm is selected as a quick and easy method of shifting the nominal design point in the multidimensional parameter space to the new location. The classic COG algorithm is modified to avoid situations when the position of either "pass" or "fail" center of gravity is difficult to determine. Examples of application, which include a wide-angle IR lens and a plan-apochromat objective for a digital microscope show that such method of lens design centering is promising, and even a single iteration may result in significantly improved yield.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicManufacturing Process and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207