MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400999384 · doi:10.1093/mam/ozae044.1028

MC X-ray Coupled with Neural Networks for Element Quantification: A Neural Network-Enhanced Approach

2024· article· en· W4400999384 on OpenAlexaff
Dawei Gao, Yu Yuan, Raynald Gauvin, Nicolas Piché

Bibliographic record

VenueMicroscopy and Microanalysis · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicElectron and X-Ray Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsObject Research Systems (Canada)McGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial neural networkMaterials scienceElement (criminal law)Biological systemComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceBiologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (EDS) represents a pivotal analytical method for the elemental assessment of various materials, generating a spectrum where the signal intensity can be indicative of elemental concentration. Notwithstanding, the quantitative analytical prowess of EDS is contingent upon the availability of an extensive database of elemental standards, a resource that often entails considerable expenditure. In addressing this constraint, our study integrates the applications of neural networks with Monte Carlo simulations to enhance the cost-effectiveness of the analytical process. Monte Carlo simulations [1], a renowned computational approach, are adept at forecasting electron-material interactions. This is accomplished by simulating the trajectories of numerous electrons impinging on a sample concurrently, alongside the ensuing X-ray emissions upon each electron collision. Over time, an array of software predicated on Monte Carlo simulations has been developed, including notable examples like CASINO [2], Win X-ray [1], MC X-ray [3], and Penelope [4]. Among these, MC X-ray and Penelope are distinguished for their proficiency in simulating comprehensive EDS spectra for samples of varied geometries and compositions. In our research, the efficacy of MC X-ray is corroborated through a comparative analysis with Penelope, examining factors such as X-ray depth distribution, K-ratios against the Pouchou database(fig.1), and spectral alignment with empirical data. The comparative study elucidates a high degree of concordance between the two systems across various metrics. Notably, MC X-ray demonstrates a substantial computational efficiency, processing data 36 times faster than Penelope under identical conditions(fig.2). Leveraging the rapid and precise spectral generation capabilities of MC X-ray, we have curated a dataset encompassing various concentrations and their corresponding spectra, serving as the training set for a deep learning model. This model, designed with a custom loss function tailored to the specific requirements of this domain, exhibits the capacity to predict elemental concentrations from EDS spectra with an accuracy exceeding 99%(fig.3). The model's performance, validated against simulation data, underscores the feasibility of the project and its potential to evolve into a "visual EDS database." This innovative approach promises to markedly diminish both the temporal and financial burdens traditionally associated with quantitative EDS analysis. The K-ratio comparison results between MC X-ray and Penelope with Pouchou database. Comparison of computational time for MC X-ray and PENELOPE under identical simulation conditions (1.0e6 showers for PENELOPE and 1.0e6 electrons for MC X-ray). Times are averaged across all 826 samples during the K-ratio comparison with the Pouchou database. Simulations were conducted on a personal laptop powered by an AMD R7 5800H CPU. Validation of a Neural Network Model for a Multi-Element (Na, Al, Si, K, Ti, Fe, O) System: An Evaluation with an 80% Training and 20% Validation Data Split for a 0.5mm³ Bulk Sample (RMSE=0.0066).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueMicroscopy and MicroanalysisSame topicElectron and X-Ray Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207