MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411153878 · doi:10.1364/jocn.561437

Supervised and unsupervised learning for classifying changes in optical time domain reflectometer traces

2025· article· en· W4411153878 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Christine Tremblay, David Boertjes, Yinqing Pei, Christian Desrosiers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Optical Communications and Networking · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMitacs
KeywordsOptical time-domain reflectometerComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Domain (mathematical analysis)Unsupervised learningTime domainSupervised learningArtificial neural networkOptical fiberComputer visionTelecommunicationsMathematicsFiber optic sensorFiber optic splitter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Global telecommunications heavily rely on optical fibers as the foundation of their network infrastructure, making it imperative for network operators to ensure their dependability. The traditional optical time domain reflectometer (OTDR) focuses on event detection, but in-service measurements can detect the interactions of distributed effects such as fiber loss, Raman amplification, stimulated Raman scattering, and channel loading. This research paper demonstrates the effectiveness of supervised and unsupervised learning models in accurately categorizing changes observed in in-service OTDR traces. Among the supervised models tested, the multilayer perceptron exhibited superior performance with a classification accuracy of 0.891 on multiple-effect data, surpassing the random forest and convolutional neural network. Clustering models were also explored, focusing on single-effect data; the best result was obtained using the Gaussian mixture model, achieving a normalized mutual information of 0.663 and an adjusted Rand index of 0.52.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.583
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Optical Communications and NetworkingSame topicSpectroscopy and Chemometric AnalysesFrench-language works237,207