Deep learning classification and regression models for temperature values on a simulated fibre specklegram sensor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fiber optic specklegram sensors use the modal interference pattern (or specklegram) to determine the magnitude of a disturbance. The most used interrogation methods for these sensors have focused on point measurements of intensity or correlations between specklegrams, with limitations in sensitivity and useful measurement range. To investigate alternative methods of specklegram interrogation that improve the performance of the fiber specklegram sensors, we implemented and compared two deep learning models: a classification model and a regression model. To test and train the models, we use physical-optical models and simulations by the finite element method to create a database of specklegram images, covering the temperature range between 0 °C and 100 °C. With the prediction tests, we showed that both models can cover the entire proposed temperature range and achieve an accuracy of 99.5%, for the classification model, and a mean absolute error of 2.3 °C, in the regression model. We believe that these results show that the strategies implemented can improve the metrological capabilities of this type of sensor.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".