MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Intelligent Ice Detection Based on Artificial Neural Network Using Microwave Sensor

2023· article· en· W4408703515 on OpenAlexaff
Dima Kilani, Omid Niksan, Mohammad H. Zarifi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIcing and De-icing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial neural networkComputer scienceMicrowaveIntelligent sensorArtificial intelligenceRemote sensingWireless sensor networkTelecommunicationsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microwave-based material detection involves vector network analyzer measurements with high frequency sweep points (e.g.,> 1000), which increases the cost of subsequent data processing. When implementing artificial intelligence (AI) on a chip for data processing, a large number of frequency sweep points increases the size of the neural network which adds significant power and area overheads. This work presents a machine learning (ML) model using an artificial neural network architecture for detecting ice, water, and air by only using four frequency points. At the core, the sensing of material and the collection of datasets are based on the response of a microwave SRR sensor. This microwave resonator is designed to operate at 5.1 GHz, enabling the sensing of ice, water, and air based on the permittivity and thickness variations. After the proper selection of four frequency points based on the change of the resonator's characteristics over a narrow frequency range of 4.6 GHz to 5.2 GHz, the ML model is trained and tested using gradient descent with the backpropagation method. The ML model achieves a high inference accuracy of 98.8%. This development based on a microwave resonator sensor and AI-chip provides a practical solution for ice detection applications, where lowering the cost in terms of power consumption and device implementation are the major criteria.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.336
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIcing and De-icing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207