Automatic Detection and Identification of Defects by Deep Learning Algorithms from Pulsed Thermography Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Infrared thermography (IRT), is one of the most interesting techniques to identify different kinds of defects, such as delamination and damage existing for quality management of material. Objective detection and segmentation algorithms in deep learning have been widely applied in image processing, although very rarely in the IRT field. In this paper, spatial deep-learning image processing methods for defect detection and identification were discussed and investigated. The aim in this work is to integrate such deep-learning (DL) models to enable interpretations of thermal images automatically for quality management (QM). That requires achieving a high enough accuracy for each deep-learning method so that they can be used to assist human inspectors based on the training. There are several alternatives of deep Convolutional Neural Networks for detecting the images that were employed in this work. These included: 1. The instance segmentation methods Mask-RCNN (Mask Region-based Convolutional Neural Networks) and Center-Mask; 2. The independent semantic segmentation methods: U-net and Resnet-U-net; 3. The objective localization methods: You Only Look Once (YOLO-v3) and Faster Region-based Convolutional Neural Networks (Fast-er-RCNN). In addition, a regular infrared image segmentation processing combination method (Absolute thermal contrast (ATC) and global threshold) was introduced for comparison. A series of academic samples composed of different materials and containing artificial defects of different shapes and nature (flat-bottom holes, Teflon inserts) were evaluated, and all results were studied to evaluate the efficacy and performance of the proposed algorithms.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".