MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059911660 · doi:10.1117/12.440112

<title>Preamplifier impulse-response shape-driven shot-noise in direct-detection photon-counting laser radars</title>

2001· article· en· W2059911660 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Douglas G. Youmans

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Optical Sensing Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAlberta Agricultural Research Institute
KeywordsPreamplifierPhysicsImpulse responseGaussian noiseDetectorPhoton countingOpticsMathematicsAmplifierAlgorithmMathematical analysisOptoelectronics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The number of photons returning form a target in a given time interval is well described by a negative-binomial distributed random variable. A photomultipler tube (PMT) photon-counting detector is optimal for direct detection, and the number of detected-photon 'electron pulses' produced is also negative-binomially distributed per time bin, with a reduced mean due to the device quantum efficiency. These time distributed electron pulses are amplified and filtered by the preamplifier electronics prior to digitization and signal processing. The voltage output pulse per individual photo-electron event is known as the 'impulse-response- function' of the detector and preamplifier. In this study we employ a typical analog preamplifier filter response, modeled as a Butterworth lowpass filter of order two, which filters a 200 ps wideband PMT input voltage pulse. The random summation of these lowpass voltage impulse-responses, as created by the negative-binomial photon arrival times and random photo-electron creation, is the classical electronic 'shot-noise' random process. We derive numerically the voltage probability density function of this negative- binomial/impulse-response driven shot-noise random process following the stochastic process literature. We also show a technique to include PMT variations in gain, known as the 'pulse height distribution,' and to incorporate Gaussian baseline-noise voltage. Agreement with AMOR experiments is shown to be excellent. In addition, a Monte Carlo realization is presented, using the same impulse-response temporal shape, which also gives excellent agreement with AMOR data and with the analytical/numerical calculations.

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 score0.210
Threshold uncertainty score0.743

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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