Image Inpainting with Hypergraphs for Resolution Improvement in Scanning Acoustic Microscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scanning Acoustic Microscopy (SAM) uses high-frequency acoustic waves to generate non-ionizing, label-free images of the surface and internal structures of industrial objects and biological specimens. The resolution of SAM images is limited by several factors such as the frequency of excitation signals, the signal-to-noise ratio, and the pixel size. We propose to use a hypergraphs image inpainting technique for SAM that fills in missing information to improve the resolution of the SAM image. We compared the performance of our technique with four other different techniques based on generative adversarial networks (GANs), including AOTGAN, DeepFill v2, Edge-Connect and DMFN. Our results show that the hypergraphs image inpainting model provides the SOTA average SSIM of 0.82 with a PSNR of 27.96 for 4× image size enhancement over the raw SAM image. We emphasize the importance of hypergraphs' interpretability to bridge the gap between human and machine perception, particularly for robust image recovery tools for acoustic scan imaging. We show that combining SAM with hypergraphs can yield more noise-robust explanations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".