MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414264636 · doi:10.1117/12.3065145

Achieving optical accuracy in sampled surfaces

2025· article· en· W4414264636 on OpenAlexaff
Laleh Mokhtarpour, Erin Elliot, Shawn Gay, David Vega

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSurface Roughness and Optical Measurements
Canadian institutionsAnsys (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGhostingInterpolation (computer graphics)Sampling (signal processing)OversamplingSurface (topology)Stray lightSoftwareImage resolution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Converting aspheric and freeform surfaces into an optical software format requires sampling with an optimal interpolation technique and resolution. The conversion resolution is crucial for maintaining optical accuracy. Oversampling generates excessive data, while insufficient resolution can introduce fit errors, leading to unintended stray light, ghosting artifacts, power loss, and efficiency degradation. This study examines various sampled surfaces with different shapes and surface irregularities to investigate the necessary resolutions for achieving optical accuracy while preserving critical surface features. Fit accuracy is evaluated under different sampling resolutions and interpolation methods. Our work aims to improve the handling of Grid, CAD, and True Freeform sampled surfaces within optical design workflows.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.362
Threshold uncertainty score0.362

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSurface Roughness and Optical MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207