MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295350857 · doi:10.4171/mag/99

Seeing the invisible: Digital holography

2022· article· en· W4295350857 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Mathematical Society Magazine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAugmented Reality Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónUniversidad de OviedoBasque Center for Applied MathematicsUniversidad Politécnica de MadridUniversité de Technologie de CompiègneFundación Caja MadridUniversidad Complutense de MadridMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónYork UniversityHarvard University
KeywordsDigital holographyHolographyComputer graphics (images)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For the past years there has been an increasing interest in developing mathematical and computational methods for digital holography. Holographic techniques furnish noninvasive tools for high-speed 3D live cell imaging. Holograms can be recorded in the millisecond or microsecond range without damaging samples. A hologram encodes the wave field scattered by an object as an interference pattern. Digital holography aims to create numerical images from digitally recorded holograms. We show here that partial differential equation constrained optimization, topological derivatives of shape functionals, iteratively regularized Gauss–Newton methods, Bayesian inference, and Markov chain Monte Carlo techniques provide effective mathematical tools to invert holographic data with quantified uncertainty. Holography set-ups are particularly challenging because a single incident wave is employed. Similar tools could be useful in inverse scattering problems involving other types of waves and different emitter/receiver configurations, such as microwave imaging or elastography, for instance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.209 · 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