MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409326512 · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3559443

Performance Evaluation of Image Super-Resolution for Cavity Detection in Irradiated Materials

2025· article· en· W4409326512 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John Olamofe, Lijun Qian, Kevin G. Field

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadiation Detection and Scintillator Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsImage resolutionResolution (logic)IrradiationMaterials scienceOpticsComputer scienceComputer visionArtificial intelligencePhysicsNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Radiation-induced swelling in structural materials is a significant challenge for the safe operation of nuclear power plants. One of the promising solutions to accelerate the understanding of swelling is the development of machine learning tools for accelerated characterization of irradiated microstructures, focusing on cavities which contribute to a materials swelling response. In this paper, we examine an object detection model for cavities, YOLOv8, for cavity detection using the datasets from the Canadian Nuclear Laboratory (CNL) and Nuclear Oriented Materials & Examination (NOME). Specifically, we explored the use of Image Super-Resolution (ISR) techniques to enhance the detection performance either in the underfocused or overfocused condition for improved small cavity detection. The overall F1-score increase of 6.8% via ISR, highlights the effectiveness of ISR techniques in enhancing the model’s performance in detecting irradiation-induced cavities across all modalities. Furthermore, this study presents a comparative evaluation of YOLOv8 and Faster R-CNN, discussing their detection trade-offs and suitability for different imaging conditions. In addition to evaluating overall detection accuracy, this work assesses the impact of ISR on both models’ precision and recall for cavity detection.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.333
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicRadiation Detection and Scintillator TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207