Robust image segmentation for feature extraction from internal combustion engine in-cylinder images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In-cylinder imaging diagnostics for internal combustion engines provide rich information on the structure and evolution of reaction zone features, which affect both engine out emissions and efficiency. However, the most common analysis of in-cylinder combustion luminosity imaging considers ensemble averaged images, which are not suitable for characterizing processes that vary significantly between cycles, such as ignition and soot formation and oxidation. Here, a robust image segmentation algorithm is presented for feature extraction from single-cycle in-cylinder combustion images and is used with a ‘combination of interpretations’ (COI) approach to analyze OH*-chemiluminescence imaging of premixed and non-premixed natural gas combustion modes in an optically-accessible reciprocating engine. Dynamic thresholding and region size filtering are combined with watershed segmentation to create a parameterized adaptive watershed (PAW) segmentation algorithm. The fusion of these segmentation methods is novel to combustion imaging and is demonstrated to provide quantified improvement relative to the current state of the art segmentation methods; PAW segmentation provides increased sensitivity for early ignition processes, and more robustly identifies the reaction zones at later stages of combustion. The PAW algorithm requires no adjustment between the two considered combustion modes or for any stage of the combustion process. The reliability of the PAW output enables feature extraction of individual reaction zone location and area from the combustion images using a polar-sector coordinate system for COI analysis. This approach characterizes the cyclic variability of individual fuel jets, identifies coupling of auto-ignition behavior between adjacent reaction zones, and demonstrates systematic errors arising from measurement of auto-ignition in ensemble averaged images. Application of PAW segmentation and the analysis approach presented here can provide more complete characterization of other spatially-resolved internal combustion diagnostics, particularly where there is high process variability, overlapping image regions, or wide signal intensity ranges.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".