High-speed odour sensing using miniaturised electronic nose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animals have evolved to rapidly detect and recognise brief and intermittent encounters with odour packages, exhibiting recognition capabilities within milliseconds. Artificial olfaction has faced challenges in achieving comparable results-existing solutions are either slow; or bulky, expensive, and power-intensive-limiting applicability in real-world scenarios for mobile robotics. Here we introduce a miniaturised high-speed electronic nose; characterised by high-bandwidth sensor readouts, tightly controlled sensing parameters and powerful algorithms. The system is evaluated on a high-fidelity odour delivery benchmark. We showcase successful classification of tens-of-millisecond odour pulses, and demonstrate temporal pattern encoding of stimuli switching with up to 60 Hz. Those timescales are unprecedented in miniaturised low-power settings, and demonstrably exceed the performance observed in mice. For the first time, it is possible to match the temporal resolution of animal olfaction in robotic systems. This will allow for addressing challenges in environmental and industrial monitoring, security, neuroscience, and beyond.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.114 |
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 teacher head, 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".