Data fusion in X-ray computed tomography using a superiorization approach
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
X-ray computed tomography (CT) is an important and widespread inspection technique in industrial non-destructive testing. However, large-sized and heavily absorbing objects cause artifacts due to either the lack of penetration of the specimen in specific directions or by having data from only a limited angular range of views. In such cases, valuable information about the specimen is not revealed by the CT measurements alone. Further imaging modalities, such as optical scanning and ultrasonic testing, are able to provide data (such as an edge map) that are complementary to the CT acquisition. In this paper, a superiorization approach (a newly developed method for constrained optimization) is used to incorporate the complementary data into the CT reconstruction; this allows precise localization of edges that are not resolvable from the CT data by itself. Superiorization, as presented in this paper, exploits the fact that the simultaneous algebraic reconstruction technique (SART), often used for CT reconstruction, is resilient to perturbations; i.e., it can be modified to produce an output that is as consistent with the CT measurements as the output of unmodified SART, but is more consistent with the complementary data. The application of this superiorized SART method to measured data of a turbine blade demonstrates a clear improvement in the quality of the reconstructed image.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it