Domain Adapted Deep-Learning for Improved Ultrasonic Crack Characterization Using Limited Experimental Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep learning is an effective method for ultrasonic crack characterization due to its high level of automation and accuracy. Simulating the training set has been shown to be an effective method of circumventing the lack of experimental data common to nondestructive evaluation (NDE) applications. However, a simulation can neither be completely accurate nor capture all variability present in the real inspection. This means that the experimental and simulated data will be from different (but related) distributions, leading to inaccuracy when a deep learning algorithm trained on simulated data is applied to experimental measurements. This article aims to tackle this problem through the use of domain adaptation (DA). A convolutional neural network (CNN) is used to predict the depth of surface-breaking defects, with in-line pipe inspection as the targeted application. Three DA methods across varying sizes of experimental training data are compared to two non-DA methods as a baseline. The performance of the methods tested is evaluated by sizing 15 experimental notches of length (1-5 mm) and inclined at angles of up to 20° from the vertical. Experimental training sets are formed with between 1 and 15 notches. Of the DA methods investigated, an adversarial approach is found to be the most effective way to use the limited experimental training data. With this method, and only three notches, the resulting network gives a root-mean-square error (RMSE) in sizing of 0.5 ± 0.037 mm, whereas with only experimental data the RMSE is 1.5 ± 0.13 mm and with only simulated data it is 0.64 ± 0.044 mm.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".