Dynamic Line Scan Thermography Parameter Design via Gaussian Process Emulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We address the challenge of determining a valid set of parameters for a dynamic line scan thermography setup. Traditionally, this optimization process is labor- and time-intensive work, even for an expert skilled in the art. Nowadays, simulations in software can reduce some of that burden. However, when faced with many parameters to optimize, all of which cover a large range of values, this is still a time-consuming endeavor. A large number of simulations are needed to adequately capture the underlying physical reality. We propose to emulate the simulator by means of a Gaussian process. This statistical model serves as a surrogate for the simulations. To some extent, this can be thought of as a “model of the model”. Once trained on a relative low amount of data points, this surrogate model can be queried to answer various engineering design questions. Moreover, the underlying model, a Gaussian process, is stochastic in nature. This allows for uncertainty quantification in the outcomes of the queried model, which plays an important role in decision making or risk assessment. We provide several real-world examples that demonstrate the usefulness of this method.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".