Inferring the solution space of microscope objective lenses using deep learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lens design extrapolation (LDE) is a data-driven approach to optical design that aims to generate new optical systems inspired by reference designs. Here, we build on a deep learning-enabled LDE framework with the aim of generating a significant variety of microscope objective lenses (MOLs) that are similar in structure to the reference MOLs, but with varied sequences—defined as a particular arrangement of glass elements, air gaps, and aperture stop placement. We first formulate LDE as a one-to-many problem—specifically, generating varied lenses for any set of specifications and lens sequence. Next, by quantifying the structure of a MOL from the slopes of its marginal ray, we improve the training objective to capture the structures of the reference MOLs (e.g., Double-Gauss, Lister, retrofocus, etc.). From only 34 reference MOLs, we generate designs across 7432 lens sequences and show that the inferred designs accurately capture the structural diversity and performance of the dataset. Our contribution answers two current challenges of the LDE framework: incorporating a meaningful one-to-many mapping, and successfully extrapolating to lens sequences unseen in the dataset—a problem much harder than the one of extrapolating to new specifications.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".