MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155141236 · doi:10.1364/ao.41.000298

Multiplexed computer-generated hologram with polygonal apertures

2002· article· en· W2155141236 on OpenAlexaff
Jean-Numa Gillet, Yunlong Sheng

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Optics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Imaging Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpticsHolographyMultiplexingPtychographySpatial frequencyComputer graphics (images)Computer scienceDiffractionPhysicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A novel type of multiplexed computer-generated hologram (CGH) is designed with more than one billion of pixels per period. It consists of elementary cells divided into arbitrary-shaped polygonal apertures, the division being identical in all cells. The cells are further digitized into pixel arrays to exploit the huge space-bandwidth product of electron-beam lithography. The polygonal apertures in the same location inside the cells constitute a subhologram. With the Abbe transform that has never, to our knowledge, been used in other CGH designs, the subhologram images (subimages) are obtained with fast Fourier transforms. It is therefore possible to design a multiplexed CGH that has a size thousands of times larger than the manageable size of a conventional CGH designed with the iterative Fourier transform algorithm (IFTA). A much larger object window than that of the conventional CGH can also be achieved with the multiplexed polygonal-aperture CGH, owing to its extremely large dimensions. The multiplexed polygonal-aperture CGH is designed with the novel iterative subhologram design algorithm, which considers the coherent summation of the subimages and applies constraints on the total image, subimages, and subholograms. As a result, the noise appearing in the preceding multiplexed-CGH designs is avoided. The multiplexed polygonal-aperture CGH has a much higher diffraction efficiency than that resulting from either the preceding multiplexed-CGH designs or the conventional CGH designed by the IFTA.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.184
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied OpticsSame topicAdvanced Optical Imaging TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207