MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588533727 · doi:10.1109/antem.2000.7851662

Using the unrelated illumination method in the reconstruction of three dimensional dielectric bodies

2000· article· en· W2588533727 on OpenAlexaff
I. El-Babli, A. Sebak

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrowave Imaging and Scattering Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrowave imagingInverse scattering problemDiffraction tomographyInverse problemRegularization (linguistics)A priori and a posterioriIterative methodIterative reconstructionScatteringAlgebraic equationDiffractionApplied mathematicsMethod of moments (probability theory)Mathematical analysisComputer scienceAlgorithmMathematicsOpticsPhysicsMicrowaveNonlinear systemArtificial intelligenceQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the last decade several numerical techniques have been developed for solving the inverse electromagnetic scattering problems and microwave imaging of inhomogeneous dielectric bodies. In particular two approaches have been utilized. The first is the microwave diffraction tomography [1]. This approach is based on the generalization of the classical x-ray computed tomography by taking into consideration the diffraction effects. This method can only handle low contrast dielectric bodies. The second approach aims to solve the exact equation of the electromagnetic inverse scattering problem by numerical methods such as the method of moments (MoM) [2]. In the MoM, the problem solution is reduced to the solution of linear system of algebraic equations. Unfortunately the scattering matrix that governs the external scattered field induced by an internal equivalent current is highly ill-conditioned. Thus any attempt to compute its inverse makes the system ill-posed especially in the presence of noise. Several regularization techniques have been used [3], [4] aiming to reduce the effect of the ill-conditioning. These employ priori information either to select a suitable regularization parameter or to enforce convergence in iterative techniques. Moreover, most of these techniques require the presence of a few number of scatterers and employ multiview illumination and some are only applicable to two-dimensional problems.

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 score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.250
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

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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMicrowave Imaging and Scattering AnalysisFrench-language works237,207