Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 37 references

Digital measurement of droplet flame diameter in microgravity combustion images using Segment Anything Model 2 with automatic prompt selection

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that an automatic prompt-point SAM2 workflow, with RANSAC circle fitting, can replace manual measurement of droplet flame diameter in microgravity combustion images, reaching 96.9% mean relative agreement to the manual refe

desk verdict Solid SAM2-based measurement pipeline for microgravity droplet flames, but the headline accuracy is only agreement with the same group's manual reference, not independent truth. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.16587 v1 pith:CLJ6OBSP submitted 2026-07-18 cs.CV

Minghui Xu , Chaoyi Zhou , Aaron P. Cecil , Xi Liu , Siyu Huang , Yuhao Xu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords dropletflamediametermicrogravitycombustionSegmentAnythingModel2automaticpromptgenerationRANSACcirclefittingimage-basedmetrologymeasurementuncertaintydiagnostics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to solve a measurement problem: flame diameter in microgravity droplet combustion is a key quantity, but its manual extraction from self-illuminated video is subjective, slow, and prone to bias from soot tails, blurred boundaries, and drifting droplets. The proposed answer is a fully automated pipeline built on Segment Anything Model 2, with automatically generated prompt points to locate the flame, a video memory mechanism to follow drifting droplets, and RANSAC circle fitting to discard soot-tail pixels. Across 19,537 images of n-heptane, n-decane, and n-octane, the workflow reports 96.9% mean relative agreement with manual-reference diameters, an 8.54% combined standard uncertainty, and roughly a 229-fold reduction in processing time. The authors present this as a metrologically characterized replacement for manual flame-diameter measurement and as a template for using AI segmentation in quantitative image-based metrology.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the automatic prompt-point generator coupled to SAM2's video memory. From a coarse HSV/brightness mask, the algorithm extracts the largest contour, estimates the flame centroid, places four symmetric boundary points (retracted by a fixed shrink factor), and adds a centroid point as positive prompts, plus two negative background points. These prompts remove the need for human point selection and suppress chamber-reflection artifacts, while SAM2's memory attention module keeps the segmentation temporally consistent as the droplet drifts. The final circle parameters come from RANSAC, which counts inliers with geometric residual below a pixel threshold and refits on

What would settle it

Resegment a subset of these videos with several independent human annotators and measure inter-annotator agreement; if annotators differ from each other by more than the reported 3.1% MAPE, part of the 'agreement' is an artifact of matching one particular reference. Alternatively, compare the SAM2 diameters against an independent, crisper-boundary measurement (e.g., UV or schlieren imaging of the same flames); if the independent reference deviates from both SAM2 and the manual reference by more than 8.5%, the claimed accuracy is not absolute.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a general-purpose segmentation model can be turned into a trustworthy digital measurement instrument for flame diameter without retraining. The authors combine an HSV-based contour estimate to generate five symmetric prompt points automatically, feed those prompts to SAM2's video model for frame-consistent segmentation of the flame, and then apply RANSAC-based circle fitting so that pixels belonging to a soot tail are rejected as geometric outliers rather than biasing the diameter. Against manual-reference measurements, the method achieves a mean relative agreement of 96.9% and a mean absolute percentage error of 3.1%, and it outperforms conventional Hough circle de

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the manual-reference diameters—carrying a stated 8.5% uncertainty—are the correct ground truth; the reported 96.9% agreement is agreement with hand-drawn measurements, not with an independently established physical flame diameter.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Flame diameter data from archived microgravity experiments can be regenerated automatically with documented agreement to earlier manual values, enabling comparisons across fuels and initial droplet diameters.
  • The workflow reduces a roughly 20,000-minute manual analysis load to about 90 minutes on the tested set, making full-video, high-throughput combustion diagnostics practical.
  • Accuracy rising with droplet size implies small-droplet flames are the hardest cases; for those, the method still reports around 96–97% agreement.
  • The reported combined uncertainty of 8.54% is dominated by the manual-reference uncertainty, so the automated pipeline itself adds little beyond the reference.
  • Because SAM2 is used without fine-tuning, the authors argue the same recipe can be applied to other fuels and other combustion-imaging tasks without per-dataset training.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The 96.9% figure is agreement with a manual reference carrying 8.5% stated uncertainty; a fair reading is that the workflow reproduces human judgment at human-level uncertainty, not that it measures an absolute ground truth more accurately than a human can.
  • A natural extension, not tested here, is applying the same auto-prompt-plus-RANSAC recipe to other blurry-boundary circular measurements—bubbles in flow, weld pool shapes, or biological colonies—where a threshold-based contour can initialize prompts.
  • The dependence of accuracy on droplet size hints that pixel resolution, not segmentation quality, is the limiting factor for small droplets; higher-resolution imaging or super-resolution preprocessing would likely push small-droplet agreement toward the large-droplet level.
  • One could benchmark the auto-prompt strategy against a fully learned circle-regression baseline on the same 19,537 images; if a lightweight network matched or exceeded 96.9% at lower latency, the SAM2 dependency would be optional rather than necessary.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a fully automated image-analysis workflow for measuring droplet flame diameter in microgravity combustion videos. The pipeline combines automatic prompt-point generation with SAM2 video segmentation, RANSAC-based circle fitting, and temporal tracking via SAM2's memory mechanism. The authors validate the method on 19,537 flame images from ISS FLEX-2 experiments covering n-heptane, n-decane, and n-octane, reporting a mean relative agreement of 96.9% with manual-reference measurements, an 8.54% combined standard uncertainty, and an approximately 229x speed-up over manual measurement. The central claim is that this workflow provides a reproducible, fully automated, and metrologically characterized replacement for manual flame-diameter extraction.

Significance. If the claims are substantiated, this is a useful contribution to combustion diagnostics and to the broader use of foundation segmentation models in quantitative image metrology. The work draws on a large publicly available dataset, avoids fine-tuning SAM2, and tackles real challenges (soot tails, corona effects, droplet drift) with domain-aware strategies. The reported efficiency gain is substantial, and the method appears to generalize across three fuels. However, the significance is conditional: the headline accuracy is measured only against a manual reference produced by the same research group, and several key parameters were selected using that same reference. The paper does not yet provide independent evidence that the method measures the true flame diameter rather than reproducing the biases of the manual reference.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, 3.7; Eqs. (8)] The validation ground truth is not independent. The manual-reference measurements m-measurements from Ref. [5] are generated by the same group and carry a stated 8.5% uncertainty. Eq. (8) adds u_ref=0.085 directly into the combined uncertainty, so the reported 8.54% is dominated by the reference uncertainty and does not characterize the automated method itself. Because the HSV thresholds, shrink factor, RANSAC parameters, and prompt-point count were selected by comparing to these same m-measurements in Sections 3.2–3.4, the 96.9% agreement is plausibly tuned to reproduce that specific manual interpretation. Please provide an independent validation—for example, on synthetic images with known flame diameters, or against multi-annotator manual measurements with inter-observer variability—and/or reframe the claim as 'agreement with manual reference' rather than absolute accuracy. The abstrac
  2. [Sections 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 4] The reported accuracy numbers are inconsistent. Section 3.1 reports 98.19% for RANSAC in a subset; Section 3.3 reports 98.05%/98.17% for 5/7 manual p-points; Section 3.4 reports 98.95% for auto prompts; Section 3.6 states the overall 'average accuracy' is 96.9%; Section 4 reports 98.1%. It is unclear which metric is used for the headline claim, for which runs, and with what variation across fuels or droplet sizes. Please report the full per-run breakdown, the sample sizes for each percentage, and confidence intervals or standard deviations for the 96.9% headline value. Without these, the reader cannot assess whether the differences reflect genuine variation or artifacts of the evaluation protocol.
  3. [Section 3.4, Eq. (IoU/Dice definitions)] The definitions of IoU and Dice are incorrect as stated. The text defines IoU = |A∩B|/|A∪B| and Dice = 2|A∩B|/(|A|+|B|), where A is the segmentation mask and B is 'the manual-reference measurements value'. The manual-reference 'value' is a scalar flame diameter, not a binary mask, so set intersection and union are not defined. The IoU/Dice results in Figure 8 are therefore not interpretable as stated. Please either provide the actual manual segmentation masks used for these overlap metrics or define a proper mask-level ground truth. This is a load-bearing issue for the claim that auto-prompt segmentation has IoU>0.93.
  4. [Section 3.7, Eq. (8)] The uncertainty budget conflates reference uncertainty with the method's own uncertainty. u_ref=0.085 is the uncertainty of the manual reference, not of the automated workflow; adding it to u_fit and u_cal yields a combined uncertainty that reflects agreement with a noisy reference rather than the repeatability or trueness of the automated method. Please separate the method's own uncertainty (e.g., repeatability from multiple runs, sensitivity to prompt placement, RANSAC fitting variability) from the validation comparison uncertainty. Also justify the assumed calibration standard deviations σL=0.5 mm and σP=1 pixel; these appear arbitrary but enter the final uncertainty directly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract/Introduction] The abstract says 'metrologically characterized' but the current uncertainty budget is dominated by the reference term; consider aligning the wording with the actual validation.
  2. [Section 3.1, Eq. (3)] The parentheses in the indicator function are unbalanced: '1(ε_i(θ) ≤ τ)' should be '1(ε_i(θ) ≤ τ)' with closing parenthesis; also the sum index notation should be cleaned up.
  3. [Section 3.4] The text says 'B is the manual-reference measurements value'; please clarify whether a diameter value or a binary mask is used for the overlap metrics. If a mask is available, describe how it was obtained.
  4. [Section 2] The claim 'approximately 229-fold improvement' is based on manual measurement times from a previous study (Ref. [5]) and the authors' own workflow time. Please state clearly the hardware/software used for the timing comparison, since wall-clock time depends heavily on GPU vs CPU and on the manual measurement protocol.
  5. [Section 4, Figure 12d] The increasing accuracy with initial droplet diameter is an interesting empirical observation, but the three explanatory factors are somewhat speculative. Consider quantifying the pixel-level boundary uncertainty as a function of droplet size instead of listing qualitative factors.
  6. [References] Some references are to arXiv preprints (e.g., Ref. [27]) and to a thesis (Ref. [29,34]) for the manual-reference uncertainty. If journal versions are available, cite them; otherwise, specify the exact source of u_ref=0.085 more precisely.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Validation is not fully independent: prompt-count selection and the reference itself come from the same manual-reference measurements used to compute the reported accuracy.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.3 (Effects of prompt-point selection) and Section 4/Abstract (headline accuracy)]
    "The measured flame diameter results for 5 and 7 manual p-points overlap almost exactly, and the results are highly accurate, with average accuracy percentages of 98.05% and 98.17%, respectively. These results indicate that five manual p-points ... are sufficient to obtain accurate measurements of flame diameter. Therefore, the deployment of the five manual prompts is used for the rest of the paper to achieve accurate flame segmentation. ... Compared with manual-reference measurements, the proposed workflow achieves a mean relative agreement of 96.9%."

    The number of prompt points (a key design parameter) was selected on n-heptane runs by maximizing agreement with the manual-reference (m-measurement) diameters, and the same m-measurements are then used to compute the headline 96.9% agreement, including those runs. The reported accuracy is therefore partly an in-sample measure of how well the chosen configuration reproduces the specific manual reference, rather than an out-of-sample validation. It is not a full identity because the automated diameters are computed from images, not from the manual values; the leak is statistical/selection-based, not equation-based.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical measurement pipeline rather than a formal derivation, so most of the derivation-chain circularity patterns do not apply. The automatic workflow (SAM2 segmentation from HSV-initialized prompts, RANSAC circle fitting) does not take the manual-reference diameters as an input; its outputs are image-derived. However, the validation protocol has a real selection leak: Section 3.3 chooses the five-prompt configuration by comparing to the m-measurements, and Sections 3.6/4 report accuracy against the same m-measurements, including the development runs. Additionally, the manual reference comes from the same research group's earlier work ([5], [29], [34]) and carries a stated 8.5% uncertainty that dominates the combined 8.54% uncertainty budget. These concerns compromise the independence of the headline numbers but do not reduce the measurement to its inputs by construction; the n-decane/n-octane data and the Hough baseline provide partially independent content. Score 4 reflects partial circularity from tuning/selecting on the evaluation reference, not a fully forced result.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurement claim rests on several hand-set preprocessing parameters (HSV thresholds, shrink factor, prompt count, RANSAC parameters) and on the assumption that the manual-reference measurements are an unbiased gold standard. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • HSV brightness threshold = V > 25
    Hand-chosen threshold in the automatic prompt generation; affects where the coarse contour is found and hence the prompt points.
  • HSV saturation threshold = S > 15
    Hand-chosen; see Section 3.4.
  • RGB color-sum threshold = R+G+B > 40
    Hand-chosen; see Section 3.4.
  • Morphological kernel sizes = closing 5x5, opening 3x3
    Chosen for noise suppression; no sensitivity analysis.
  • Shrink factor = 0.9
    Used to retract ray-contour intersections toward the centroid; hand-set, affects p-point locations.
  • Number of p-points = 5 (1 centroid + 4 annulus)
    Selected based on empirical accuracy comparison in Figure 6; dataset-dependent.
  • RANSAC inlier threshold tau and confidence p = not specified
    Equations (3)-(4) require tau, p, and inlier ratio w; values are not reported, yet affect the fitted circle and thus D_f.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Manual-reference measurements from [5] are unbiased ground truth for flame diameter.
    All accuracy numbers are computed relative to m-measurements; if those are biased, the reported agreement is not an absolute accuracy. (Section 3.1, accuracy formula).
  • domain assumption Flame boundary is approximately circular (Eq. 1).
    The method fits a circle; microgravity flames are expected to be spherical, but deviations could bias D_f.
  • domain assumption SAM2's pretrained weights generalize to self-illuminated combustion images without fine-tuning.
    They use sam2.1_hiera_tiny pretrained checkpoint and do not fine-tune; if SAM2 cannot segment flames, the pipeline fails.
  • domain assumption The HSV/color masks provide a reliable coarse contour for prompt initialization.
    If the masks miss the flame in unusual lighting, the auto prompts will be wrong and the segmentation degrades. (Section 3.4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Digital measurement of droplet flame diameter in microgravity combustion images using Segment Anything Model 2 with automatic prompt selection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CLJ6OBSP

@misc{pith2026260716587,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Digital measurement of droplet flame diameter in microgravity combustion images using Segment Anything Model 2 with automatic prompt selection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CLJ6OBSP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.16587}
}
read the original abstract

Flame diameter is a key measurable parameter in microgravity droplet combustion, but its extraction from self-illuminated frames remains difficult because soot tails, blurred luminous boundaries, chamber reflections, and droplet drift introduce substantial measurement bias and operator dependence. This work presents an AI-enabled digital measurement workflow for automated flame diameter from combustion images. The workflow integrates automatic prompt-point generation into Segment Anything Model 2, employing Random Sample Consensus (RANSAC)-based circle fitting. The automatic prompt strategy removes subjective manual point selection, while the video memory mechanism maintains temporal consistency for drifting droplets, and the RANSAC fitting rejects soot-tail pixels as geometric outliers. The method is validated by 19,537 flame images of n-heptane, n-decane, and n-octane droplets with varying initial diameters. Compared with manual-reference measurements, the proposed workflow achieves a mean relative agreement of 96.9%, a mean absolute percentage error of 3.1%, and substantially outperforms conventional Hough circle detection, which performed worse under the same evaluation conditions. The results also show that the measurement accuracy improves with increasing droplet size. The proposed workflow has a combined standard uncertainty of 8.54% and achieves approximately a 229-fold improvement in efficiency over manual measurement. These results demonstrate that the proposed SAM2-based workflow provides a reproducible, fully automated, and metrologically characterized digital measurement system for extracting flame diameter from challenging combustion images. The approach supports high-throughput combustion diagnostics and illustrates that AI-based segmentation can be integrated into quantitative measurement workflows for digitalized image-based metrology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.16587 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Representative self-illuminated flame images [13] of burning n-heptane droplets with two different initial droplet diameters (D0 = 1.93 mm, D0 = 3.47 mm) at various combustion stages. a. & d. Obscured flame boundary with luminous corona. b. A soot tail extending from the main flame zone. c. Droplet drift during experiments. e. A bright, yellow flame without a soot tail. f. A blue flame for a larger droplet. 1.2 Rela… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The pipeline of the overall framework for automatic flame diameter measurements via flame segmentation achieved by incorporating the automated p-points into SAM2. The subsequent section will discuss the details of how to extend SAM2 to complete flame segmentation and measure flame diameter for various flame images under different challenging conditions, as previously shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Demonstration of accurate circle fitting with RANSAC. a. an unprocessed flame image with a soot tail as the original input to the framework; b. generated flame mask (binary); c. mask overlay on original frame in which soot tail is also highlighted; d. convex circle fitting (blue dashed markers); e. final refined geometric least-squares fit (blue dashed markers) overlaid on the mask; note that the soot tail is now ex… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Effects of p-points on measuring the flame diameters using SAM2. a. Representative flame images illustrating SAM2 segmentation of an n-heptane droplet (D0 = 3.55 mm) with and without a manual p-point. Df, meas indicates the measured flame diameter by SAM2. b. The compa…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Representative failure case of SAM2 segmentation without manual prompts of a n￾heptane droplet (D0 = 3.47 mm). The chamber reflection is misdetected as the flame region and thus overestimates the flame diameter, exceeding 100 mm (the arrows indicate the chamber reflect…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Effects of the deployment and number of p-points on Df measurement accuracy. a. Representative images showing SAM2 segmentation of a burning n-heptane droplet (D0 = 3.47 mm) with different numbers of manual p-points (green points). b. The temporal evolution of flame di…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The pipeline for the automated generation of symmetric p-points for SAM2-based flame segmentation. To further assess segmentation performance, we employ two standard overlap metrics: the Intersection-over-Union (IoU = |A∩B|/|A∪B|) [35] and the Dice coefficient (Dice = …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Quantitative evaluation of segmentation accuracy under different prompt strategies as a function of a normalized time t/D0 2 : a. Intersection-over-Union; b. Dice coefficient. Results show that using five automatically generated p-points (red line) consistently achieve…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of Df measurements obtained from different strategies. Results are shown for five manual p-points (black), five automatically generated p-points (red), and m￾measurements (blue). The close agreement between auto- and manual-prompt methods demonstrates that t…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of flame diameter measurements obtained using the proposed auto￾prompt method and a conventional Hough circle detection algorithm. The flame diameters Df of a n-heptane droplet with D0 = 1.93 mm are plotted as a function of the normalized time t/D0 2 , with…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [5]

    Y.C. Liu, Y. Xu, M.C. Hicks, C.T. Avedisian, Comprehensive study of initial diameter effects and other observations on convection-free droplet combustion in the standard atmosphere for n -heptane, n-octane, and n- decane, Combust. Flame 171 (2016) 27-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2016.05.013

    work page doi:10.1016/j.combustflame.2016.05.013 2016

  2. [1]

    S. Guo, Y. Xu, A. Scaboro, R. Rasul, Y. Wang, A. Reeves, A. Cuoci, A. Frassoldati, M.C. Hicks, C.T. Avedisian, Combustion of n -propylbenzene: experiments and numerical modeling, Proc. Combust. Inst. 40 (2024) 105543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2024.105543

    arXiv 2024

  3. [2]

    Y. Xu, Y. Shen, C.T. Avedisian, M.C. Hicks, M.Y. Choi, Quantitative investigation of sooting dynamics in droplet combustion using an automated image analysis algorithm, Fuel 354 (2023) 129313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2023.129313

    arXiv 2023

  4. [3]

    Y. Xu, T.I. Farouk, M.C. Hicks, C.T. Avedisian, Initial diameter effects on combustion of unsupported equi - volume n -heptane/iso-octane mixture droplets and the transition to cool flame behavior: experimental 20 observations and detailed numerical modeling, Combust. Flame 220 (2020) 82 -91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2020.06.012

    work page doi:10.1016/j.combustflame.2020.06.012 2020

  5. [4]

    Y. Xu, M.C. Hicks, C.T. Avedisian, The combustion of iso -octane droplets with initial diameters from 0.5 to 5 mm: effects on burning rate and flame extinction, Proc. Combust. Inst. 36 (2017) 2541 -2548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2016.07.096

    work page doi:10.1016/j.proci.2016.07.096 2017

  6. [6]

    Y.C. Liu, Y. Xu, C.T. Avedisian, M.C. Hicks, The effect of support fibers on micro -convection in droplet combustion experiments, Proc. Combust. Inst. 35 (2015) 1709 -1716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2014.07.022

    work page doi:10.1016/j.proci.2014.07.022 2015

  7. [7]

    Y. Xu, J.D. Brunson, C.T. Avedisian, Y. Shen, I. Keresztes, A.M. Condo, D. Phillips, Burning of algae- derived biofuel droplets and their mixtures with jet fuel, Energy Fuels 34 (2020) 929 -935. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.9b03238

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.energyfuels.9b03238 2020

  8. [8]

    Y. Xu, I. Keresztes, M. Condo, D. Phillips, P. Pepiot, C.T. Avedisian, Droplet combustion characteristics of algae-derived renewable diesel, conventional# 2 diesel, and their mixtures, Fuel 167 (2016) 295 -305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2015.11.036

    work page doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2015.11.036 2016

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Liu, F.E

    Y.C. Liu, F.E. Alam, Y. Xu, F.L. Dryer, C.T. Avedisian, T.I. Farouk, Combustion characteristics of butanol isomers in multiphase droplet configurations, Combust. Flame 169 (2016) 216 -228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2016.04.018

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    Y. Xu, C.T. Avedisian, Combustion of iso-butanol, gasoline, and iso-butanol/gasoline mixture droplets, Energy Fuels 29 (2015) 3467-3475. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.5b00158

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    Dietrich, V

    D.L. Dietrich, V. Nayagam, M.C. Hicks, P.V. Ferkul, F.L. Dryer, T. Farouk, B.D. Shaw, H.K. Suh, M.Y. Choi, Y.C. Liu, C.T. Avedisian, F.A. Williams, Droplet combustion experiments aboard the International Space Station, Microgravity Sci. Tec. 26 (2014) 65-76. https://doi.org/10...

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    Turns, Introduction to Combustion, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill Companies, New York, NY, USA, 2012

    S.R. Turns, Introduction to Combustion, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill Companies, New York, NY, USA, 2012

    2012

  5. [13]

    Investigations / Physical Sciences Informatics (PSI) -68

    NASA, 2025. Investigations / Physical Sciences Informatics (PSI) -68. https://psi.nasa.gov/physci/repo/data/investigations/PSI-68 (accessed 14 October 2025)

    2025

  6. [14]

    Ioannou, W

    D. Ioannou, W. Huda, A.F. Laine, Circle recognition through a 2D Hough transform and radius histogramming, Image Vision Comput. 17 (1999) 15-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0262-8856(98)00090-0

    1999 doi

  7. [15]

    H.K. Yuen, J. Princen, J. Illingworth, J. Kittler, Comparative- study of Hough transform methods for circle finding, Image Vision Comput. 8 (1990) 71-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/0262-8856(90)90059-E

    1990 doi

  8. [16]

    C. More, A. Patil, Circular hough transform for detecting and measuring circles of object, Int. J. Recent Innov. Trends Comput. Commun. 3 (2015) 563-566. https://doi.org/10.17762/ijritcc.v3i2.3862

    2015 doi

  9. [17]

    Lee, S.K

    Y. Lee, S.K. Panda, W. Wang, M.K. Jawed, Measure Anything: Real -time, Multi- stage Vision -based Dimensional Measurement using Segment Anything, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.03472 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Heo, G.E

    Y. Heo, G.E. Lee, J. Cho, S.I. Choi, Deep learning-based aortic diameter measurement in traumatic hemorrhage using shallow attention network: a path forward, Diagnostics 15 (2025) 1312. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15111312

    2025 doi

  11. [19]

    Rasul, C.T

    R.B. Rasul, C.T. Avedisian, Y. Xu, M.C. Hicks, A.P. Reeves, Dynamic differential image circle diameter measurement precision assessment: application to burning droplets, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 45 (2023) 1668-1681. https://doi.org/10.1109/Tpami.2022.3170926

    2023

  12. [20]

    M. Xu, X. Liu, M.C. Hicks, C.T. Avedisian, Y. Xu, On the use of a sensitivity -enhanced algorithm to quantify sooting dynamics in droplet combustion of highly sooty fuels, Combust. Flame 284 (2026) 114668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2025.114668

    2026

  13. [21]

    Jackson, C.T

    G. Jackson, C.T. Avedisian, The effect of initial diameter in spherically symmetric droplet combustion of sooting fuels, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences 446 (1994) 255-276. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1994.0103

    1994

  14. [22]

    Liu, C.T

    Y.C. Liu, C.T. Avedisian, A comparison of the spherical flame characteristics of sub -millimeter droplets of binary mixtures of n-heptane/iso-octane and n-heptane/toluene with a commercial unleaded gasoline, Combust. Flame 159 (2012) 770-783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustf...

    2012 doi

  15. [23]

    X. Liu, M. Xu, M.C. Hicks, C.T. Avedisian, Y. Xu, On burning rate and flame extinction for toluene droplets in low gravity, Energy Fuels 40 (2026) 3372-3381. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.5c05103

    2026 doi

  16. [24]

    cool flame

    T.I. Farouk, Y. Xu, C.T. Avedisian, F.L. Dryer, Combustion characteristics of primary reference fuel (PRF) droplets: single stage high temperature combustion to multistage "cool flame" behavior, Proc. Combust. Inst. 36 (2017) 2585-2594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2016.07.066

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    Banu, Fluids and combustion facility (FCF) and combustion integrated rack (CIR), Payload Accomodations Handbook CIR-DOC-4064, NASA John H

    B. Banu, Fluids and combustion facility (FCF) and combustion integrated rack (CIR), Payload Accomodations Handbook CIR-DOC-4064, NASA John H. Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio (2008)

    2008

  18. [26]

    Robbins, C

    J. Robbins, C. Shinn, Multi -user droplet combustion apparatus FLEX -2, Reflight Safety Data Package MDC - DOC-1790A, NASA John H. Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio (2010). 21

    2010

  19. [27]

    N. Ravi, V. Gabeur, Y.T. Hu, R. Hu, C. Ryali, T. Ma, H. Khedr, R. Rädle, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson, Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos, arXiv:2408.00714 (2024). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2408.00714

    2024 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    Y.M. Wu, H. Zhang, P. Vandewalle, P. Slaets, E. Demeester, A comprehensive review on advances in instance- level 6D object pose tracking, Comput. Vis. Image Underst. 264 (2026) 104667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cviu.2026.104667

    2026

  21. [29]

    Liu, Droplet combustion of surrogate and real fuel systems in a low convection condition: ground -based and space-based experiments, Cornell University, 2013

    Y.C. Liu, Droplet combustion of surrogate and real fuel systems in a low convection condition: ground -based and space-based experiments, Cornell University, 2013

    2013

  22. [30]

    Fischler, R.C

    M.A. Fischler, R.C. Bolles, Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography, Commun. ACM 24 (1981) 381 -395. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08- 051581-6.50070-2

    1981 doi

  23. [31]

    Zhang, Y

    M. Zhang, Y. Liu, C. Sun, X. Wang, J. Tan, Precision measurement and evaluation of flatness error for the aero-engine rotor connection surface based on convex hull theory and an improved PSO algorithm, Meas. Sci. Technol. 31 (2020) 085006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6501/ab8170

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    Umbach, K.N

    D. Umbach, K.N. Jones, A few methods for fitting circles to data, IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 52 (2003) 1881 -

    2003

  25. [33]

    Kåsa, A circle fitting procedure and its error analysis, IEEE Trans

    I. Kåsa, A circle fitting procedure and its error analysis, IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 1 (2012) 8 -14. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIM.1976.6312298

    2012

  26. [34]

    Xu, Combustion dynamics of bio -derived, surrogate, and transportation fuel systems, Cornell University, 2017

    Y. Xu, Combustion dynamics of bio -derived, surrogate, and transportation fuel systems, Cornell University, 2017

    2017

  27. [35]

    Jaccard, Distribution de la flore alpine dans le bassin des Dranses et dans quelques régions voisines, Bull

    P. Jaccard, Distribution de la flore alpine dans le bassin des Dranses et dans quelques régions voisines, Bull. Soc. Vaudoise Sci. Nat. 37 (1901) 241-272. https://doi.org/10.5169/seals-266440

    1901 doi

  28. [36]

    Dice, Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species, Ecology 26 (1945) 297 -302

    L.R. Dice, Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species, Ecology 26 (1945) 297 -302. https://doi.org/10.2307/1932409

    1945 doi

  29. [1885]

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TIM.2003.820472

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.