Pith. sign in

REVIEW

A Statistical Framework for Improved Automatic Flaw Detection in Nondestructive Evaluation Images

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1702.00099 v1 pith:IC7Y3SA4 submitted 2017-02-01 stat.ME stat.AP

classification stat.MEstat.AP
keywords evaluationdetectionflawsimageimagesmethodsautomateddetect
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Nondestructive evaluation (NDE) techniques are widely used to detect flaws in critical components of systems like aircraft engines, nuclear power plants and oil pipelines in order to prevent catastrophic events. Many modern NDE systems generate image data. In some applications an experienced inspector performs the tedious task of visually examining every image to provide accurate conclusions about the existence of flaws. This approach is labor-intensive and can cause misses due to operator ennui. Automated evaluation methods seek to eliminate human-factors variability and improve throughput. Simple methods based on peak amplitude in an image are sometimes employed and a trained-operator-controlled refinement that uses a dynamic threshold based on signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) has also been implemented. We develop an automated and optimized detection procedure that mimics these operations. The primary goal of our methodology is to reduce the number of images requiring expert visual evaluation by filtering out images that are overwhelmingly definitive on the existence or absence of a flaw. We use an appropriate model for the observed values of the SNR-detection criterion to estimate the probability of detection. Our methodology outperforms current methods in terms of its ability to detect flaws.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Pith tools