Compressive Sensing Strategy on Sparse Array to Accelerate Ultrasonic TFM Imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phased array ultrasonic testing (PAUT) based on full matrix capture (FMC) has recently been gaining popularity in the scientific and nondestructive testing communities. FMC is a versatile acquisition method that collects all the transmitter-receiver combinations from a given array. Furthermore, when postprocessing FMC data using the total focusing method (TFM), high-resolution images are achieved for defect characterization. Today, the combination of FMC and TFM is becoming more widely available in commercial ultrasonic phased array controllers. However, executing the FMC-TFM method is data-intensive, as the amount of data collected and processed is proportional to the square of the number of elements of the probe. This shortcoming may be overcome using a sparsely populated array in transmission followed by an efficient compression using compressive sensing (CS) approaches. The method can therefore lead to a massive reduction of data and hardware requirements and ultimately accelerate TFM imaging. In the present work, a CS methodology was applied to experimental data measured from samples containing artificial flaws. The results demonstrated that the proposed CS method allowed a reduction of up to 80% in the volume of data while achieving adequate FMC data recovery. Such results indicate the possibility of recovering experimental FMC signals using sampling rates under the Nyquist theorem limit. The TFM images obtained from the FMC, CS-FMC, and sparse CS approaches were compared in terms of contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). It was seen that the CS-FMC combination produced images comparable to those acquitted using the FMC. Implementation of sparse arrays improved CS reconstruction times by up to 11 folds and reduced the firing events by approximately 90%. Moreover, image formation was accelerated by 6.6 times at the cost of only minor image quality degradation relative to the FMC.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".