MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395004638 · doi:10.3390/a17040167

Evaluating Diffusion Models for the Automation of Ultrasonic Nondestructive Evaluation Data Analysis

2024· article· en· W4395004638 on OpenAlexaff
Nick Torenvliet, John Zelek

Bibliographic record

VenueAlgorithms · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFlow Measurement and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomationUltrasonic sensorNondestructive testingComputer scienceDiffusionAcousticsMechanical engineeringEngineeringPhysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We develop decision support and automation for the task of ultrasonic non-destructive evaluation data analysis. First, we develop a probabilistic model for the task and then implement the model as a series of neural networks based on Conditional Score-Based Diffusion and Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Model architectures. We use the neural networks to generate estimates for peak amplitude response time of flight and perform a series of tests probing their behavior, capacity, and characteristics in terms of the probabilistic model. We train the neural networks on a series of datasets constructed from ultrasonic non-destructive evaluation data acquired during an inspection at a nuclear power generation facility. We modulate the partition classifying nominal and anomalous data in the dataset and observe that the probabilistic model predicts trends in neural network model performance, thereby demonstrating a principled basis for explainability. We improve on previous related work as our methods are self-supervised and require no data annotation or pre-processing, and we train on a per-dataset basis, meaning we do not rely on out-of-distribution generalization. The capacity of the probabilistic model to predict trends in neural network performance, as well as the quality of the estimates sampled from the neural networks, support the development of a technical justification for usage of the method in safety-critical contexts such as nuclear applications. The method may provide a basis or template for extension into similar non-destructive evaluation tasks in other industrial contexts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.134
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlgorithmsSame topicFlow Measurement and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207