MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2759050625 · doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa8ad3

Optimization of Positioning of Interferometric Array Antennas Using Division Algorithm for Radio Astronomy Applications

2017· article· en· W2759050625 on OpenAlexaff
Shahideh Kiehbadroudinezhad, Daniela Valente, Michael Čada, Nor Kamariah Noordin, Adib Shahabi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadio Astronomy Observations and Technology
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsRadio astronomyInterferometryRadio telescopeDivision (mathematics)AstronomyRemote sensingAlgorithmComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Square Kilometre Array (SKA) ushers in the new generation of large radio telescopes that will work at wavelengths between meters and centimeters. In order to competitively design interferometric antenna arrays such as SKA, it is crucial to focus on the optimization of system performance. In this paper, we contribute to the solution by introducing a new optimization algorithm called Division Algorithm (DA). This algorithm finds the optimal positions of antennas to simultaneously maximize u–v coverage and decrease sidelobe level (SLL). The DA is able to optimize the configuration of the interferometric array in both snapshot and Earth rotation synthesis observations. To demonstrate its efficiency, the DA is applied to configure an optimum 30-element array for the Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope. The proposed algorithm is able to improve the overlapped samples parameter by about 4% and the unsampled cells parameter by about 12%, at snapshot observation, compared to the Genetic Algorithm (GA). DA is able to improve these two parameters for a 6-hr tracking observation as well. Finally, the proposed algorithm is compared with the GA for different source declination. Results show that the DA is able to decrease the SLL better than the GA.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.744
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astronomical JournalSame topicRadio Astronomy Observations and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207