MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792617803 · doi:10.1002/mop.31062

Pseudo‐color enhancement and its segmentation for femtosecond laser spot image

2018· article· en· W2792617803 on OpenAlexaff
Fubin Wang, Wu Chen, Yang Liu, Ding Feng, Yiliu Tu

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrowave and Optical Technology Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Material Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer visionImage segmentationParticle swarm optimizationComputer sciencePixelImage processingOpticsSegmentationPhysicsImage (mathematics)Algorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract When using femtosecond laser processing silicon wafer, arises laser spot along with the plasma diffraction. Comparatively studied the spot images of silicon wafer which was in three processing movement states as follows: towards the left, stop, towards the right, found that the three dimensional Gauss mean ablation energy of spot image almost kept the same, this provides experimental support for femtosecond laser feedback processing based on Gauss energy of spot image. Then the following image enhancement strategies are proposed: pseudo color transformation for spot image, color decomposition in RGB space and image superposition of G component, and the quality of the spot image is improved. In addition, adopted the method of Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) or K ‐means respectively, analyzed the segmentation effect for spot image: through traversal compares the gray value of image pixel and fitness function, realized the spot image segmentation with PSO, and the clustering and segmentation for data cluster of image pixel was realized by K ‐means. Finally, overcome the shortcomings of PSO and K ‐means, the ideal segmentation for spot target image is realized by combining the two methods.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.541

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicrowave and Optical Technology LettersSame topicLaser Material Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207