Sub-sample displacement estimation from digitized ultrasound RF signals using multi-dimensional polynomial fitting of the cross-correlation function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A widely used time-domain technique for motion or delay estimation between digitized ultrasound RF signals involves the maximization of a discrete pattern-matching function, usually the cross-correlation. To achieve sub-sample accuracy, the discrete pattern-matching function is interpolated using the values at the discrete maximizer and adjacent samples. In prior work, only 1-D fit, applied separately along the axial, lateral, and elevational axes, has been used to estimate the sub-sample motion in 1-D, 2-D, and 3-D. In this paper, we explore the use of 2-D and 3-D polynomial fitting for this purpose. We quantify the estimation error in noise-free simulations using Field II and experiments with a commercial ultrasound machine. In simulated 2-D translational motions, function fitting with quartic spline polynomials leads to maximum bias of 0.2% of the sample spacing in the axial direction and 0.4% of the sample spacing in the lateral direction, corresponding to 38 nm and 1.31 μm, respectively. The maximum standard deviations were approximately 1% of the sample spacing in both the axial and the lateral directions, corresponding to 193 nm axially and 4.43 μm laterally. In simulated 1% axial strain, the same function fitting leads to mean absolute displacement estimation errors of 255 nm in the axial direction and 4.77 μm in the lateral direction. In experiments with a linear array transducer, 2-D quartic spline fitting leads to maximum bias of 458 nm and 6.27 μm in the axial and the lateral directions, respectively. These results are more than one order of magnitude smaller than those obtained with separate 1-D fit when applied to the same data set. Simulations and experiments in 3-D yield similar results when comparing 3-D polynomial fitting with 1-D fitting along the axial, lateral, and elevational directions.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".