A measure of the information content of EIT data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We ask: how many bits of information (in the Shannon sense) do we get from a set of EIT measurements? Here, the term information in measurements (IM) is defined as: the decrease in uncertainty about the contents of a medium, due to a set of measurements. This decrease in uncertainty is quantified by the change from the inter-class model, q, defined by the prior information, to the intra-class model, p, given by the measured data (corrupted by noise). IM is measured by the expected relative entropy (Kullback-Leibler divergence) between distributions q and p, and corresponds to the channel capacity in an analogous communications system. Based on a Gaussian model of the measurement noise, (Sigma(n)), and a prior model of the image element covariances (Sigma(x)), we calculate IM = 1/2 summation operator log(2)([SNR](i) + 1), where [SNR](i) is the signal-to-noise ratio for each independent measurement calculated from the prior and noise models. For an example, we consider saline tank measurements from a 16 electrode EIT system, with a 2 cm radius non-conductive target, and calculate IM =179 bits. Temporal sequences of frames are considered, and formulae for IM as a function of temporal image element correlations are derived. We suggest that this measure may allow novel insights into questions such as distinguishability limits, optimal measurement schemes and data fusion.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".