MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319745936 · doi:10.1063/5.0105147

In-fiber interferometry sensors for refractive index

2023· article· en· W4319745936 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physics Reviews · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Fiber Optic Sensors
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInterferometryOpticsAstronomical interferometerRefractive indexMach–Zehnder interferometerOptical fiberFigure of meritGraded-index fiberFiber optic sensorMichelson interferometerMaterials scienceSensitivity (control systems)Normalized frequency (unit)PhysicsElectronic engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Compact interferometers based on waveguiding structures have found countless applications in refractive index measurements, chemical sensing, as well as temperature and pressure measurements. The most common fiber devices are based on Mach–Zehnder interferometry and Michelson interferometry—two design concepts that can readily be implemented using simple fiber optic components, such as mode splitters and combiners, fiber optic gratings, and fiber tapers, among others. Fiber interferometry can also be conducted based on the Sagnac effect and the Young (double-slit) interferometer. In this review, we examine and compare over 400 fiber optic interferometers as well as more than 60 fiber optic refractive sensors based on fiber optic cavities. Even though many of the devices show temperature-, strain-, and pressure-sensitivity, we focus our review on refractive index measurements, as these are the most common applications. Many devices were characterized by their inventors using their sensitivity to refractive index changes. While the sensitivity is an important characteristic of the device, it does not easily relate to the smallest resolvable refractive index change or the limit of detection when applied to chemical measurements. Instead, we propose here that one should use the figure of merit, which is defined through the refractive index sensitivity and the width of an interferometer fringe. Using simple assumptions, we were able to mathematically relate the sensitivity and the figure of merit to common design parameters, such as the length of the interferometer arms, the operating wavelength, refractive indices of the fiber and the sample, as well as an overlap parameter, which describes the fraction of the guided wave in the sensing arm that interacts with the sample. We determined this overlap parameter for each reviewed device from the reported interferograms. Our meta-analysis provides for the first time simple and easily applicable guidance to increase the figure of merit of fiber optic interferometers and fiber optic cavities with regard to their ability to detect small refractive index changes. A high figure of merit allows measuring very small refractive index changes such as those of gases at different pressures or of very dilute solutions.

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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.262 · 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