MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Nonparametric Dense-Object Detection Algorithm for Applications of Cosmic-Ray Muon Tomography

2020· article· en· W3113237054 on OpenAlexafffund
E. T. Rand, O. Kamaev, Andrew Valente, Amanjot Bhullar

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Applied · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle Detector Development and Performance
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear Laboratories
FundersAtomic Energy of Canada Limited
KeywordsAlgorithmTomographyMuonDetectorComputer scienceCluster analysisNonparametric statisticsCosmic rayPhysicsNuclear materialArtificial intelligenceNuclear physicsOpticsMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present an algorithm that utilizes data generated by cosmic-ray muon-scattering tomography for passive nondestructive detection of dense objects. Our clustering-based approach uses a nonparametric statistical test based on a reference case to determine the presence of high-density high-$Z$ material, such as illicit nuclear material hidden inside a shipping canister. The algorithm outputs a single decision value for the absence or presence of illicit material without the need to perform a detailed visual tomographic reconstruction and/or the need to rely on human interpretation, in contrast to many other muon-based imaging techniques. The performance of the algorithm is demonstrated using experimental data obtained with the Cosmic-Ray Inspection and Passive Tomography detector from two setups consisting of a lead flask, a 55-gallon drum filled with sand, and 2 kg of metallic depleted uranium (DU). The results of these experiments illustrate that the high-density lead flask can be automatically distinguished from the background, with an area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.90 using less than 90 s of data; the lead flask with 2 kg of DU inside can be detected within the 55-gallon drum containing sand in under 5 min with an AUC of 0.91. Our experimental results illustrate the efficacy of this algorithm for the identification of dense objects using reference background measurements. Practical applications of this algorithm are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review AppliedSame topicParticle Detector Development and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207