MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Finite elements parameterization of optical tomography with the radiative transfer equation in frequency domain

2012· article· en· W2062860390 on OpenAlexaff
O. Balima, Yann Favennec, F. Dubot, Daniel R. Rousse

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInverse problemDiffuse optical imagingFinite element methodRadiative transferOptical tomographyTomographyInversion (geology)MathematicsMathematical analysisAlgorithmApplied mathematicsComputer scienceMathematical optimizationOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optical tomography is a technique of probing semi-transparent media with the help of light sources. In this method, the spatial distribution of the optical properties inside the probed medium is reconstructed by minimizing a cost function based on the errors between the measurements and the predictions of a numerical model of light transport (also called forward/direct model) within the medium at the detectors locations. Optical tomography with finite elements methods involves generally continuous formulations where the optical properties are constant per mesh elements. This study proposes a numerical analysis in the parameterization of the finite elements space of the optical properties in order to improve the accuracy and the contrast of the reconstruction. Numerical tests with noised data using the same algorithm show that continuous finite elements spaces give better results than discontinuous ones by allowing a better transfer of the information between the whole computational nodes of the inversion. It is seen that the results are more accurate when the number of degrees of freedom of the finite element space of the optical properties (number of unknowns) is lowered. This shows that reducing the number of unknowns decreases the ill-posed nature of the inverse problem, thus it is a promising way of regularizing the inversion.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.505
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207