MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169379798 · doi:10.1109/cca.2005.1507216

Neural network control of a MEMS torsion micro mirror

2005· article· en· W2169379798 on OpenAlexafffund
Khaled M. Al-Aribe, George K. Knopf

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MEMS and NEMS Technologies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsOptical switchActuatorMicroelectromechanical systemsTorsion (gastropod)Optical pathOptical fiberMaterials scienceComputer scienceElectronic engineeringOptoelectronicsOpticsElectrical engineeringEngineeringPhysicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-performance optical communication networks require stable switches to rapidly redirect a light beam from one port, or fiber, to another without converting the optical signal into an electrical signal. Micro-electromechanical (MEMS) optical switches are miniature devices that use tiny mirrors to alter the path of light. These switches enable all-optical capability, are small and compact, and cheap to fabricate. However, many torsion mirror optical switches are activated by electrostatic actuators that exhibit a pull-in phenomena which greatly effects system stability. The pull-in phenomena occurs when the gap between the electrodes in the actuator is reduced to less than two thirds of the original value thereby causing an uncontrolled contraction between the two sides the capacitor. This paper describes how a backpropagation neural network can be used to control an electrostatically actuated optical switch without using stiff suspension systems or mechanical stops. The two-layer network is applied to both single input and dual input MEMS torsion mirror optical switches. Simulation studies are presented to demonstrate how the proposed scheme allows the switching mechanism to operate in a stable range and avoid the effect of pull-in phenomena

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations5
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced MEMS and NEMS TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207