MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Using the Supervised Descent Method to Improve the Initial Guess of Optimization-Based Microwave Imaging Methods

2025· article· W7139944367 on OpenAlexaff
Seth Cathers, Wanting Zhang, Colin Gilmore, Ian Jeffrey

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrowave Imaging and Scattering Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPattern recognition (psychology)Microwave imagingNoise (video)Gradient descentClutterNoise reduction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Machine learning techniques for microwave imaging have seen significant recent progress (N. Khalid et al., npj Imaging, 2, 1, 2024). However, optimization-based algorithms (e.g. Contrast Source Inversion (P. M. van den Berg and A. Abubakar, Prog. Electromagn. Res., 34, 189-218, 2001)) still have the benefit of generalizability without a large training dataset, as well as using the underlying physics of the problem. One of the costs of using ML imaging methods is that they are only as good as the training data set and how well it covers the target space. In order to have a generalizable ML algorithm, thousands of training examples are usually required (even in 2D imaging). One of the issues with optimization imaging methods is the dependence on the quality of the initial guess (in our experience, this is especially true with 3D imaging with limited data).

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.341
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.334 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 topicMicrowave Imaging and Scattering AnalysisFrench-language works237,207