Deep Learning Neural Network Performance on NDT Digital X-ray Radiography Images: Analyzing the Impact of Image Quality Parameters - An Experimental Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to the growing inspection demand exerted by process automation in component manufacturing, Non-destructive testing (NDT) continues to explore automated approaches that utilize deep learning algorithms for defect identification, including within digital X-ray radiography images. This necessitates a thorough understanding of the implication of image quality parameters on the performance of these deep learning models. This study investigates the influence of two image quality parameters, namely Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) and Contrast-to-Noise Ratio (CNR), on the performance of U-net deep learning segmentation model. Input images were acquired with varying combinations of exposure factors such as kilovoltage, milli-ampere, and exposure time, which altered the resultant quality. The data was sorted into 5 different datasets according to their measured SNR and CNR values. The deep learning model was trained 5 distinct times, utilizing a unique dataset for each training session. Training the model with high CNR values yielded an intersection over Union (IoU) metric of 0.9594 on test data of the same category but drops to 0.5875 when tested on lower CNR test data. The result in this study emphasizes the importance of achieving a balance in training dataset according to the investigated quality parameters, to enhance the performance of deep learning segmentation models in NDT radiography applications.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".