Surface roughness estimation by 3D stereo SEM reconstruction
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surface roughness is an important parameter to describe materials’ topography. This parameter has been widely studied and presents important tasks in many engineering applications. \nThe development of non-contact-based roughness measurement techniques for engineering surfaces has received much attention. However, stylus-based equipments are still dominating this measurement task. Stylus techniques have great inherent limitations as they were originally intended to acquire 2D surface topography. Therefore, 3D surface roughness data can only be obtained from stylus equipment executing multiple scans of the surface. This task takes a lot of time to achieve a satisfactory result, may make micro-scratches on surfaces and can only evaluate a small area in a reasonable amount of time. \nIn this work a new automated methodology for obtaining a 3D reconstruction model of surfaces using scanning electron microscope (SEM) images based on stereo-vision is proposed. \nThe 3D models can then be used to evaluate the surface roughness parameters. The horizontal stereo matching step is done with a robust and efficient algorithm based on semi-global matching. Since the brightness change of corresponding pixels is negligible for the small tilt involved in stereo SEM, and the cost function relies on dynamic programming, the matching \nalgorithm uses a sum of absolute differences (SAD) over a variable pixel size window and an occlusion parameter which penalizes large depth discontinuities, that in practice, smooths the disparity map and the corresponding reconstructed surface. This step yields a disparity map, i.e. the differences between the horizontal coordinates of the matching points in the stereo images. The horizontal disparity map is finally converted into heights according to the SEM acquisition parameters: tilt angle, magnification and pixel size. A validation test was first performed using a microscopic grid with manufacturer specifications as reference. \nFinally, some surface roughness parameters were calculated within the model
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it