MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3087830183 · doi:10.1364/ao.403484

Comparison of nonlinear filtering techniques for photonic systems with blackbody radiation

2020· article· en· W3087830183 on OpenAlexafffund
Isaac Spotts, C. Harrison Brodie, S. Andrew Gadsden, Mohammad Al‐Shabi, Christopher M. Collier

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Optics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBlack-body radiationPhotonicsKalman filterSIGNAL (programming language)Filter (signal processing)Noise (video)Noise reductionPhysicsOpticsReduction (mathematics)Time delay and integrationNonlinear filterOptical filterComputer scienceAcousticsRadiationFilter designArtificial intelligenceMathematicsComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work explores a theoretical solution for noise reduction in photonic systems using blackbody radiators. Traditionally, signal noise can be reduced by increasing the integration time during signal acquisition. However, increasing the integration time during signal acquisition will reduce the acquisition speed of the signal. By developing and applying a filter using a model based on the theoretical equations for blackbody radiation, the noise of the signal can be reduced without increasing integration time. In this work, three filters, extended Kalman filter, unscented Kalman filter (UKF), and extended sliding innovation filter (ESIF), are compared for blackbody photonic systems. The filters are tested on a simulated signal from five scenarios, each simulating different experimental conditions. In particular, the nonlinear filters, UKF and ESIF, showed a significant reduction of noise from the simulated signal in each scenario. The results show great promise for photonic systems using blackbody radiators that require post-process for noise reduction.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.622
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

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 head0.258
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied OpticsSame topicPhotonic and Optical DevicesFrench-language works237,207