Independent Component Analysis Applied on Pulsed Thermographic Data for Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic Inspection: A Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dimensional reduction methods have significantly improved the simplification of Pulsed Thermography (PT) data while improving the accuracy of the results. Such approaches reduce the quantity of data to analyze and improve the contrast of the main defects in the samples contributed to their popularity. Many works have been proposed in the literature mainly based on improving the Principal Component Thermography (PCT). Recently the Independent Component Analysis (ICA) has been a topic of attention. Many different approaches have been proposed in the literature to solve the ICA. In this paper, we investigated several recent ICA methods and evaluated their influence on PT data compared with the state-of-the-art methods. We conducted our evaluation on reference CFRP samples with known defects. We found that ICA outperform PCT for small and deep defects. For other defects ICA results are often not far from the results obtained by PCT. However, the frequency of acquisition and the ICA methods have a great influence on the results.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".