Enhancing FBG Sensing in the Industrial Application by Optimizing the Grating Parameters Based on NSGA-II
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fiber Bragg grating (FBG) technology has shown a mutation in developing fiber optic-based sensors because of their tiny size, high dielectric strength, distributed sensing, and immunity to high voltage and magnetic field interference. Therefore, FBG sensors significantly improve performance and accuracy in the world of measurements. The reflectivity and bandwidth are the main parameters that can dramatically affect the sensing performance and accuracy. Each industrial application has its requirements regarding the reflectivity and bandwidth of the reflected wavelength. Optimizing such problems with multi-objective functions that might t with each other based on applications' needs is a big challenge. Therefore, this paper presents an optimization method based on the nondominated sorting genetic algorithm II (NSGA-II), aiming at determining the optimum grating parameters to suit applications' needs. To sum up, the optimization process aims to convert industrial applications' requirements, including bandwidth and reflectivity, into the manufacturing setting of FBG sensors, including grating length and modulation refractive index. The method has been implemented using MATLAB and validated with other research work in the literature. Results proved the capability of the new way to determine the optimum grating parameters for fulfilling application requirements.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 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".