Extracting Thin-film Optical Parameters from Spectrophotometric Data by Evolutionary Optimization
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Extracting optical parameters from spectrophotometric measurements is a challenging task. In a photometric setup, an unknown thin-film is subjected to an incident light beam for a range of admissible wavelengths, which outputs reflectance and transmittance spectra. The current work attempts to solve an inverse problem of extracting thin-film thickness and complex refractive index from reflectance and transmittance spectra for an incident angle of light. The film thickness is a scalar quantity, and the complex refractive index is composed of real and imaginary parts as functions of wavelengths. We leverage evolutionary optimization techniques to solve the underlying inverse problem, which determines the desired parameters associated with two optical dispersion models: ensemble of Tauc-Lorentz (TL) and ensemble of Gaussian oscillators, such that the generated spectra accurately fit the input data. The optimal parameters involved in the adopted models are determined using efficient evolutionary algorithms (EAs). Numerical results validate the effectiveness of the proposed approach in estimating the optical parameters of interest.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it