Roadmap on computational methods in optical imaging and holography [invited]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computational methods have been established as cornerstones in optical imaging and holography in recent years. Every year, the dependence of optical imaging and holography on computational methods is increasing significantly to the extent that optical methods and components are being completely and efficiently replaced with computational methods at low cost. This roadmap reviews the current scenario in four major areas namely incoherent digital holography, quantitative phase imaging, imaging through scattering layers, and super-resolution imaging. In addition to registering the perspectives of the modern-day architects of the above research areas, the roadmap also reports some of the latest studies on the topic. Computational codes and pseudocodes are presented for computational methods in a plug-and-play fashion for readers to not only read and understand but also practice the latest algorithms with their data. We believe that this roadmap will be a valuable tool for analyzing the current trends in computational methods to predict and prepare the future of computational methods in optical imaging and holography. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00340-024-08280-3.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.021 |
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".