MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334113034 · doi:10.1007/s00165-016-0367-1

On the formal analysis of Gaussian optical systems in HOL

2016· article· en· W2334113034 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFormal Aspects of Computing · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGaussian beamComputer sciencePathfinderGaussianOpticsAutomated theorem provingHOLTransformation (genetics)Beam (structure)PhysicsTheoretical computer scienceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Optics technology is being increasingly used in mainstream industrial and research domains such as terrestrial telescopes, biomedical imaging and optical communication. One of the most widely used modeling approaches for such systems is Gaussian optics, which describes light as a beam. In this paper, we propose to use higher-order-logic theorem proving for the analysis of Gaussian optical systems. In particular, we present the formalization of Gaussian beams and verify the corresponding properties such as beam transformation, beam waist radius and location. Consequently, we build formal reasoning support for the analysis of quasi-optical systems. In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach, we present a case study about the receiver module of a real-world Atacama Pathfinder Experiment (APEX) telescope.

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.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.231 · 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