Prediction of medium chemical concentration with micro-ring resonators and deep learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new approach for determining the concentration composition of a multi-element media using a micro-ring resonator (MRR) is proposed which allows for noise removal as well as moderately higher average accuracy. This method uses two neural networks, namely a convolutional neural network (CNN) and a deep neural network (DNN). The CNN differentiates the transmission spectrum from the noise. This spectrum is used to obtain selected features before being fed into the DNN, which determines the concentration of each chemical in the analyte. Both models are trained to work with a silicon on-insulator ring resonator operating between the infrared wavelengths of λ=1.46 μm to λ=1.6μm on mixtures of water, ethanol, methanol, and propanol by using simulation data obtained from finite difference eigenmode, although the same approach can be used with other designs and chemical combinations. The CNN was trained using the MRR transmission spectra superimposed with white Gaussian noise as well as Poisson noise to mimic various noise sources, while the DNN underwent training on the extracted features. Average Root-Mean-Square Error was for a range of concentrations from 0.0357-75% is 5.531%.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".