MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198681040 · doi:10.1364/optica.446511

Inverse problem solver for multiple light scattering using modified Born series

2022· article· en· W3198681040 on OpenAlexaff
Moosung Lee, Hervé Hugonnet, YongKeun Park

Bibliographic record

VenueOptica · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrowave Imaging and Scattering Analysis
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
FundersMinistry of Science and ICT, South KoreaNational Research Foundation of Korea
KeywordsInverse scattering problemInverse problemSolverScatteringBorn approximationSeries (stratigraphy)Inversion (geology)InverseDiffraction tomographyDiffractionComputer scienceQuantum inverse scattering methodAlgorithmOpticsPhysicsMathematical optimizationMathematicsMathematical analysisInverse scattering transformGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The inverse scattering problem, whose goal is to reconstruct an unknown scattering object from its scattered wave, is essential in fundamental wave physics and its wide applications in imaging sciences. However, it remains challenging to invert multiple scattering accurately and efficiently. Here, we exploit the modified Born series to demonstrate an inverse problem solver that efficiently and directly computes inverse multiple scattering without making any assumptions. The inversion process is based on a physically intuitive approach and can be easily extended to other exact forward solvers. We utilize the proposed method in optical diffraction tomography and numerically and experimentally demonstrate 3D reconstruction of optically thick specimens with higher fidelity than those obtained using conventional methods based on the weak scattering approximation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations71
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpticaSame topicMicrowave Imaging and Scattering AnalysisFrench-language works237,207