A Contrast Calibration Protocol for X-ray Speckle Visibility Spectroscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
X-ray free electron lasers, with their ultrashort highly coherent pulses, opened up the opportunity of probing ultrafast nano- and atomic-scale dynamics in amorphous and disordered material systems via speckle visibility spectroscopy. However, the anticipated count rate in a typical experiment is usually low. Therefore, visibility needs to be extracted via photon statistics analysis, i.e., by estimating the probabilities of multiple photons per pixel events using pixelated detectors. Considering the realistic X-ray detector responses including charge cloud sharing between pixels, pixel readout noise, and gain non-uniformity, speckle visibility extraction relying on photon assignment algorithms are often computationally demanding and suffer from systematic errors. In this paper, we present a systematic study of the commonly-used algorithms by applying them to an experimental data set containing small-angle coherent scattering with visibility levels ranging from below 1% to ∼60%. We also propose a contrast calibration protocol and show that a computationally lightweight algorithm can be implemented for high-speed correlation evaluation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".