Experimental Microwave Imaging System Calibration via Cycle-GAN
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microwave (or electromagnetic) imaging systems seek a quantitative reconstruction of the target permittivity. Such systems require calibration of the raw <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">$S$ </tex-math></inline-formula> -parameter data. This calibration is especially difficult in some systems where known targets cannot be introduced (e.g., grain bin imaging). Herein we present a machine-learning-based method of calibrating such systems that does not require measuring a known target inside of the imaging chamber. Using a cycle-generative adversarial network (Cycle-GAN) machine-learning network, we show that we can calibrate data from a 2-D scalar microwave imaging (MWI) system and successfully reconstruct targets. Cycle-GAN makes use of two sets of data: experimental and synthetic. Unlike traditional calibration, there is no need for the experimental data to be labeled, i.e., the calibration targets do not need to be “known.” The results show that with an experimental calibration set of roughly 150 targets, the Cycle-GAN approach provides comparable results to known-target calibration for the class of targets we used in this 2-D near-field MWI system.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 it