Interferometer scanning mechanisms and metrology at ABB: recent developments and future perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interferometers are devices meant to create an interference pattern between photons emitted from a given target of interest. In most cases, this interference pattern must be scanned over time or space to reveal useful information about the target (ex.: radiance spectra or a star diameter). This scanning is typically achieved by moving mirrors at a precision a few orders of magnitude smaller than the wavelength under study. This sometimes leads to mechanism requirements of especially high dynamic range equivalent to 30 bits or more (ex. Sub-nanometer precision over stoke of tens of cms for spectroscopy or tens of meters for astronomical spatial interferometry). On top of this mechanical challenge, the servo control of the mirror position involves obtaining relative distance measurement between distant optical elements with similar if not better dynamic range. The feedback information for such servo-control loop is usually the optical path difference (OPD) measured with a metrology laser beam injected in the interferometer. Over the years since the establishement of the Fourier Transform Spectrometers (FTS) in the 60’s as a standard spectroscopic tools, many different approaches have been used to accomplish this task. When it comes to space however, not all approaches are successful. The design challenge can be viewed as analogous to that of scene scanning modules with the exception that the sensitivity and precision are much finer. These mechanisms must move freely to allow fine corrections while remaining stiff to reject external perturbations with frequencies outside of the servo control system reach. Space also brings the additional challenges of implementing as much redundancy as possible and offering protection during launch for these sub-systems viewed as critical single point failures of the payloads they serve.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.010 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".