Instrumental noise and detectivity analysis of photopyroelectric destructive thermal-wave interferometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A complete noise analysis of a two-beam photopyroelectric (thermal-wave) destructive interferometric sensor instrument is presented and compared to its single-beam, noninterferometric counterpart. The noise analysis is performed using a Green-function formalism applied to experimental observations. The instrumental background noise contribution from the detector and the amplifier is separated from the laser noise and the instrumental noise due to amplification associated with different sensitivity scales. The latter serves as the source of comparison between the two sensor configurations. It is found that the dc laser drift noise and low-frequency fluctuation noise, which are dominant in the single-beam mode, are greatly reduced to the same order of magnitude as the instrumental background noise in the two-beam mode. The system white noise resulting from the incident laser beam and from the sensitivity scale (amplification) of the demodulating lock-in amplifier are also examined in light of the experimental data. It is found that the detectivity D* (the inverse of the noise equivalent power), of the instrument is enhanced by at least 1 order of magnitude in the interferometric mode.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".