MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362696505 · doi:10.1364/ao.485172

Maximizing atmospheric-disturbed fiber coupling efficiency with speckle-based phase retrieval and a single-pixel camera

2023· article· en· W4362696505 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohamadreza Pashazanoosi, Michael D. Taylor, O. J. Pitts, Costel Flueraru, Antony Orth, Steve Hranilovic

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Optics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicDigital Holography and Microscopy
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaMcMaster University
FundersNational Research Council CanadaCompute Canada
KeywordsOpticsPhase retrievalPixelSpeckle patternCoupling (piping)Materials sciencePhase (matter)Atmospheric opticsOptical fiberPhysicsFourier transform

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An approach to adaptive optics utilizing a single-pixel camera (SPC) is proposed to maximize fiber coupling efficiency at the receiver side of an optical satellite-to-ground link perturbed by atmospheric turbulence. Using a single-pixel wavefront sensor enables operation at longer optical wavelengths, such as near and far infrared, which have advantageous propagation characteristics for free space optical communication. In this approach, a focal plane intensity image of the atmospheric-disturbed wavefront is taken via an SPC using a compressed sensing technique. An iterative speckle-based phase retrieval algorithm is then applied to infer the phase distortion corrected by a deformable mirror in a feedback loop. This computational approach to inferring the phase of the wavefront overcomes the limitations of traditional Shack-Hartman-based approaches, which are difficult to implement at high speed and at the long infrared wavelengths proposed for future optical satellite communication downlinks. It has been shown that fiber coupling efficiency is increased from less than 5% to 40%-50% in medium-to-strong turbulence scenarios with the phase retrieval algorithm proposed in this work.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.820

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)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied OpticsSame topicDigital Holography and MicroscopyFrench-language works237,207