MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107454967 · doi:10.1364/oe.20.025798

Hadamard multiplexing in laser ultrasonics

2012· article· en· W2107454967 on OpenAlexaff
Guy Rousseau, Alain Blouin

Bibliographic record

VenueOptics Express · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiplexingOpticsHadamard transformLaserDetectorSignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)PhysicsNoise (video)Shot noiseComputer scienceTelecommunicationsArtificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In state-of-the-art laser ultrasonics (LU), the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is limited by the shot noise of the detected laser radiation. Further improving the SNR then requires averaging multiple signals or increasing generation and/or detection laser intensities. The former strategy is time consuming and the latter leads to surface damages. For signal-independent limiting noises, Hadamard multiplexing increases the SNR by averaging multiple signals in parallel using a single detector. Here we consider the use of Hadamard multiplexing in LU for the non-contact ultrasonic inspection of materials. By using 31 element Hadamard masks to modulate the spatial intensity distribution of the generation laser beam, the measured SNR is improved by a factor 2.8, in good agreement with the expected multiplexing or Fellgett advantage. In contrast to many other applications of Hadamard multiplexing, the SNR is improved for shot-noise-limited measurements since the shot noise level is independent of the signal in LU. The Hadamard multiplexing of the detection laser beam is also considered but can only lead to a throughput or Jacquinot advantage. However, for pulse-echo LU, the Hadamard multiplexing of both generation and detection laser beams allows using the synthetic aperture focusing technique (SAFT).

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptics ExpressSame topicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave PropagationFrench-language works237,207