Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 101 references

Deciphering Acoustic Emission with Machine Learning

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Acoustic emission alone can reconstruct the full force-time response of compressed micropillars, including the timing and magnitude of individual dislocation avalanches.

desk verdict A real window-level AE-to-force regression result is oversold as 'individual event' prediction; the evaluation gap is the main thing to fix. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17755 v1 pith:RKYJYPAZ submitted 2024-11-25 eess.SP cond-mat.mtrl-scics.LG

Dénes Berta , Balduin Katzer , Katrin Schulz , Péter Dusán Ispánovity This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SPcond-mat.mtrl-scics.LG
keywords acousticemissiondislocationavalanchemicropillarcompressionmachinelearningrandomforestwaveletspectrogramforce-timepredictiontransferability
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

Acoustic emission (AE) recordings from compressed single-crystalline zinc micropillars contain enough information to reconstruct the full force-time response, including the timing and magnitude of individual dislocation avalanches. The paper trains a random forest regressor on statistical moments of AE time series and on wavelet spectrogram slices to predict force increments in 300 ms windows and the coarse force level in 50 s windows, then combines both into a jerky curve that tracks the measured one. The authors show that only a few features—the energy-like second moment, the amplitude (maximum), and low-order moments—carry nearly all predictive power, and that the most informative frequencies are around 100 kHz and 250 kHz. They also report that a model trained on pillars of one or several diameters predicts force drops for unseen pillar sizes (8, 16, and 32 µm) with only moderately reduced accuracy, suggesting the method may transfer to bulk samples where direct force measurement is unavailable.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are two descriptor families extracted from equisized time windows of the AE voltage signal: frequency-independent moments of the form $\sqrt[k]{\langle |V|^k \rangle}$ (mean, standard deviation, fourth root of kurtosis, and the maximum as $k\to\infty$) and frequency-dependent moments taken from slices of a continuous-wavelet spectrogram at chosen frequencies. A random forest regressor maps these descriptors to the force increment (fine scale, $\Delta t=300$ ms) or the force level (coarse scale, $\Delta T=50$ s); the two predictions are combined by adding a per-window linear slope so the final curve matches the coarse-scale shape while preserving fine-scale serrations. The analysis of single-feature and subset performance carries the argument that the energy ($k=2$), the amplitude ($k=\infty$), and the $k=1$ moment (the measured area under the rectified signal envelope, MARSE) at frequencies near 100 kHz and 250 kHz are the informative content of the AE signal.

What would settle it

Prepare an experiment that keeps the deformation mechanism identical but deliberately alters the acoustic transfer function—for example, re-mount the sample with different contact pressure, change the transducer, or test a bulk specimen—then retrain the same random forest on 8 µm pillars and test on the altered geometry. If the $R^2$ score for force-drop timing and magnitude collapses while the mechanics are unchanged, the claim that the mapping comes from the avalanche source rather than from a fixed transfer function would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a machine-learning regressor can invert enough of the acoustic-emission measurement chain—without being given the transfer function—to reproduce the plastic response of a compressed micropillar. The authors model the recorded AE voltage as $A_{\mathrm{AE}}(t)=V(t)*T(t)$, where $V(t)$ is the source function (the local deformation rate during an avalanche) and $T(t)$ is the transfer function encoding geometry, transducer resonance, and amplification; rather than deconvolving $T(t)$, they train a random forest on descriptors of $A_{\mathrm{AE}}(t)$ to predict the force increment in 300 ms windows and the force level in 50 s windows. They report that the resulting combined prediction tracks both the coarse hardening and softening shape and the fine serrations of the measured force-time curve, and that a model trained without any experiment of the test pillar's diameter still achieves reasonable $R^2$ scores. The feature analysis grounds the result in physics: the energy-like second moment, the amplitude (maximum), and low-order moments, especially at the 100 kHz and 250 kHz bands, are the features that carry nearly all of the predictive power.

Load-bearing premise

The transferability claim assumes the path from an avalanche to the recorded voltage—sample geometry, sensor resonance, and contact quality—stays similar enough across 8, 16, and 32 µm pillars and across the eight experiments, because the paper supports this only by the similarity of power spectra and does not directly vary contact or mounting.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A model trained on AE descriptors can locate deformation events in time and estimate their size without threshold-based event detection, avoiding the information loss of conventional burst-counting methods.
  • The energy-like second moment and the amplitude of the AE signal are the most valuable predictors, and combining them with low-order moments reaches near-optimal performance with only about three to four features.
  • Frequency content matters: the 100 kHz resonance tail and the 250 kHz burst onset carry most of the predictive information, while the 500 kHz noise band is largely uninformative.
  • Trained models extrapolate to unseen pillar diameters with only moderately reduced accuracy, indicating that AE-based force prediction may work for samples whose plastic response is not directly measurable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension would be testing whether the same descriptors predict avalanche magnitudes for other deformation mechanisms such as twinning or fracture; the feature-importance analysis suggests the 100 kHz and 250 kHz structure is specific to this basal-slip zinc system, so a general model would likely need training data per mechanism.
  • The saturation of performance at three to four features implies that low-cost sensors with limited bandwidth, or even single-channel recordings, might suffice for force-drop prediction—a practically testable claim.
  • The transferability result is consistent with the transfer function being dominated by specimen geometry and transducer resonance; a stronger test would be to vary sample mounting or use a different sample material while keeping the same transducer.
  • The convolution model $A_{\mathrm{AE}}=V*T$ implies that any size-dependent change in the transfer function that is not represented in the training set will appear as a distribution shift; monitoring AE power spectra during training could flag when the model is applied outside its learned regime.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a machine-learning framework that reconstructs the force-time response of Zn micropillar compression tests from simultaneously recorded acoustic emission (AE) signals. The AE data in fixed time windows are reduced to statistical moments (frequency-independent features) or to moments of spectrogram slices (frequency-dependent features), and a random forest regressor is trained to predict either the force increment in fine windows (Δt = 300 ms) or the force value in coarse windows (ΔT = 50 s). The two predictions are then combined to produce a full force-time curve. The authors evaluate the method on held-out experiments, report R² scores around 0.60–0.65 for fine-scale prediction for 8-μm pillars, analyse feature importance, and report transferability across pillar diameters of 8, 16, and 32 μm. The central claim is that the approach can predict the temporal location and magnitude of individual deformation avalanches from AE data alone.

Significance. If validated, the approach would be a useful step toward quantitative AE-based monitoring of microscale plasticity, where AE is currently used mostly phenomenologically. The paper's strengths include the use of a leave-one-experiment-out evaluation, the use of publicly available experimental data from Ispánovity et al. (2022), and the comparison of frequency-independent versus frequency-dependent descriptors. The claim is falsifiable and the experimental setup is well matched to the question. However, the significance is substantially tempered by the moderate R² values, the small number of experiments (eight), and the mismatch between the abstract's 'individual deformation events' language and the actual window-averaged regression target. The transferability result, while suggestive, rests on a very small number of held-out tests and is presented more strongly than the evidence supports.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Results ('Relevant time scales...'); Fig. 3(a); Suppl. Fig. S2] The claim that the method predicts 'individual deformation events' is not supported by the evaluation. The fine-scale target is the force increment ΔF over a fixed 300 ms window, not the size of an individual avalanche. Suppl. Fig. S2 shows waiting times between force drops down to about 10 ms, so multiple drops can and do occur within a single 300 ms window. A window-level sum or average is therefore not the same as an individual-event magnitude. Moreover, R² is computed over all windows, most of which have near-zero increments, so a model that predicts near-zero increments in quiet windows can achieve a moderately high R² even while missing or mis-sizing rare individual events. 'Temporal location' is also only evaluated at window resolution; no precision/recall or event-level localization metric is reported. The authors should either provide an event-level evaluation (e.g., matched-event precision/recall and event-size correlation) or revise the abstract and conclusions to state that the model predicts window-integrated force changes, not individual avalanches.
  2. [Transferability of the method; Fig. 5; Methods ('Machine Learning at the fine-scale')] The transferability claim is presented as 'demonstrated', but the evidence is limited. The training sets consist of four experiments and the test set of one experiment; with a total of eight experiments, the number of distinct held-out experiments for any given size composition is very small. Fig. 5 reports violin plots over windows rather than error bars or distributions over different held-out experiments, so the uncertainty of the cross-size R² values is not quantified at the experiment level. In addition, all pillars were milled from the same sample and the sample was not detached from the AE transducer between tests, so changes in contact quality, mounting, or transducer coupling—which affect the transfer function discussed in the Introduction—are not tested. The claim of transferability should be qualified accordingly, or experiment-level repeated held-out evaluation should be provided.
  3. [Results ('Machine learning model and feature selection'); Fig. 4; Methods ('Machine Learning at the fine-scale')] The feature-importance analysis appears to select the best feature subsets on the basis of R² and then reports those R² values, but the Methods do not state that this selection was performed on a validation split separate from the test experiment. The Methods specify that random-forest hyperparameters were frozen after a five-fold cross-validation grid search, but no analogous statement is made for the feature-subset selection in Fig. 4(c),(d),(g),(h). If the same held-out experiment was used both to choose the best subset and to compute the reported R², the claim that a few moments (n = 3 or n = 4) achieve the optimal performance is optimistically biased. The authors should clarify the selection procedure or repeat the selection inside cross-validation folds.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction] There is a broken sentence near 'application of ML feasible The feasibility is demonstrated'; a punctuation or sentence boundary is missing.
  2. [Results ('Machine learning model and feature selection')] The phrase 'saturating at a were strong anti-correlation for k → ∞' appears garbled and should be rewritten.
  3. [Methods ('Machine Learning at the fine-scale')] It would be helpful to state explicitly how the force increment is computed from the 200 Hz force signal within each 300 ms window (e.g., difference between first and last samples, or mean before/after), since the AE features are computed over the same window.
  4. [Results ('Transferability of the method')] The term 'predications' appears in place of 'predictions' in the description of the combination procedure; please correct the typo.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: predictions are evaluated on held-out experiments and the AE-to-force mapping is learned, not defined.

full rationale

The core derivation is a supervised random-forest mapping from acoustic-emission descriptors computed in fixed time windows to the force increment measured in the same window. The model is trained on entire experiments and tested on held-out experiments, and the training set never contains the test experiment's force data. The target variable (ΔF) is not defined in terms of the AE descriptors; it is an independently measured mechanical quantity. The paper's choice of window width and coarse/fine scales is justified by empirical distributions of drop durations and waiting times, not by the prediction target. The experimental dataset comes from the authors' prior work (Ispánovity et al., Nature Communications 2022; Ref. 51) and is deposited in Zenodo; this is an external data source with independent publication, not a load-bearing self-citation that defines the result. Other self-citations (Refs. 57–59, 98) provide scientific context or experimental setup details and do not carry the central ML claim. No equation in the paper reduces the predicted force increment or force value to the input descriptors by construction, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The abstract's phrase 'magnitude of individual deformation events' is broader than the actual window-level ΔF target, and the paper does not verify that at most one avalanche occurs per 300 ms window; however, that is a claim/evaluation mismatch concerning the strength of the result, not a circular derivation. The transferability test is also a genuine held-out experiment: models trained on four experiments are tested on a fifth, and the use of pillar diameter as a coarse-scale feature is an explicit input, not a target-derived quantity. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained and no significant circularity is present.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities or fitted physical constants. Its free parameters are all ML and preprocessing choices: RF hyperparameters, window widths, and a selected frequency subset. The axioms are domain assumptions about the acoustic model, the deformation mechanism, and transfer-function similarity across sizes, all of which are standard or experimentally motivated but not independently proven in this work.

free parameters (4)
  • Random forest hyperparameters = not reported (grid-searched with five-fold cross-validation)
    The hyperparameters were selected by grid search, but the final values are not listed in the paper. They affect the R² scores.
  • Fine-scale window width Δt = 300 ms = 0.3 s
    Chosen by hand based on the distribution of force-drop durations (Suppl. Fig. S1), verified by a robustness scan (Suppl. Fig. S3). Not fitted to maximize R², but a modeling choice.
  • Coarse-scale window width ΔT = 50 s = 50 s
    Chosen by hand based on waiting-time statistics (Suppl. Fig. S2). A modeling choice.
  • Frequency subset for transferability = 100 kHz, 250 kHz, 500 kHz
    The three frequencies were selected based on feature-importance analysis from the 8 µm experiments and used to reduce dimensionality in the transfer-learning study.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The measured AE signal is a convolution of the source function with a transfer function: A_AE(t) = V(t) * T(t).
    Standard model of AE measurements, stated in the Introduction. The ML model implicitly relies on this representation without attempting to invert T.
  • domain assumption In the tested Zn micropillars oriented for basal slip, plastic deformation occurs solely by dislocation slip on the basal plane, with no twinning, cracking, or other mechanisms.
    Stated in the Introduction as a reason the dataset is clean. If other mechanisms contributed, the AE-force mapping would not be single-valued.
  • domain assumption The acoustic transfer function is sufficiently similar across specimen sizes and across the eight experiments for a model trained on one set to predict another.
    The transferability section (Fig. 5) depends on this. Support comes from similar power spectra in Suppl. Fig. S5d, but this is not direct verification.
  • domain assumption A random forest regressor with the chosen descriptors can approximate the mapping from AE features to force increments and force values.
    The choice of ML model is motivated by small data size, but no theorem or prior guarantee ensures that the chosen features contain sufficient information for the regression task.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deciphering Acoustic Emission with Machine Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RKYJYPAZ

@misc{pith2026241117755,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deciphering Acoustic Emission with Machine Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RKYJYPAZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17755}
}
read the original abstract

Acoustic emission signals have been shown to accompany avalanche-like events in materials, such as dislocation avalanches in crystalline solids, collapse of voids in porous matter or domain wall movement in ferroics. The data provided by acoustic emission measurements is tremendously rich, but it is rather challenging to precisely connect it to the characteristics of the triggering avalanche. In our work we propose a machine learning based method with which one can infer microscopic details of dislocation avalanches in micropillar compression tests from merely acoustic emission data. As it is demonstrated in the paper, this approach is suitable for the prediction of the force-time response as it can provide outstanding prediction for the temporal location of avalanches and can also predict the magnitude of individual deformation events. Various descriptors (including frequency dependent and independent ones) are utilised in our machine learning approach and their importance in the prediction is analysed. The transferability of the method to other specimen sizes is also demonstrated and the possible application in more generic settings is discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17755 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The workflow of the ML approach. Micropillar compression tests provide force and AE data which are, then, divided into equisized time windows. From the windows, frequency independent and dependent descriptors and force increments (ground truth) are extracted. These are utilised for the training of random forest ML models. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Acoustic signals from compression tests of micropillars with a diameter of 8 µm. (a): A representative AE signal that constitutes of a few characteristic frequencies. The noise have a mean frequency of ∼500 kHz. When an event occurs a short (∼20 µs long) signal with a frequency of ∼250 kHz emerges from the noise which is followed by a longer periodic pattern of frequency ∼100 kHz. (b): The absolute value of the Four… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Double-scale prediction of the force-time response of micropillars. (a): Predictions of fine-scale response of a micropillar of diameter of 8 µm using frequency independent features. The data points correspond to force increments in ∆t = 300 ms wide time windows. ∆Fground and ∆Fpred are the ground truth and the prediction of the force increment, respectively. (b): Prediction (using frequency independent features) of… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Feature importance for d = 8µm samples. (a): The Pearson correlation of the frequency independent features (of form k q [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Transferability of the ML method across different sample sizes. The R2 score for different combinations of 4-experiment of training sets and 1-experiment test sets. The combinations with the test set of the same micropillar diameter are arranged in the same panel the m…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Hutchinson, J

    Fleck, N., Muller, G., Ashby, M. & Hutchinson, J. Strain gradient plasticity: theory and experiment. Acta Metallurgica et materialia 42, 475–487 (1994)

    1994

  2. [2]

    D., Dimiduk, D

    Uchic, M. D., Dimiduk, D. M., Florando, J. N. & Nix, W. D. Sample dimensions influence strength and crystal plasticity. Science 305, 986–989 (2004).400

    2004

  3. [3]

    D., Shade, P

    Uchic, M. D., Shade, P. A. & Dimiduk, D. M. Plasticity of micrometer-scale single crystals in compression. Annual Review of Materials Research 39, 361–386 (2009)

    2009

  4. [4]

    M., Woodward, C., LeSar, R

    Dimiduk, D. M., Woodward, C., LeSar, R. & Uchic, M. D. Scale-free intermittent flow in crystal plasticity. Science 312, 1188–1190 (2006)

    2006

  5. [5]

    F., Motz, C., Weygand, D., Zaiser, M

    Csikor, F. F., Motz, C., Weygand, D., Zaiser, M. & Zapperi, S. Dislocation avalanches, strain bursts, and the problem of plastic forming at the micrometer scale. Science 318, 251–254 (2007)

    2007

  6. [6]

    Falk, M. L. & Langer, J. S. Dynamics of viscoplastic deformation in amorphous solids. Physical Review E 57, 7192 (1998)

    1998

  7. [7]

    & Roux, S

    Talamali, M., Pet¨ aj¨ a, V., Vandembroucq, D. & Roux, S. Avalanches, precursors, and finite-size fluctuations in a meso- scopic model of amorphous plasticity. Phys. Rev. E 84, 016115 (2011).410

    2011

  8. [8]

    & Castellanos, D

    Sandfeld, S., Budrikis, Z., Zapperi, S. & Castellanos, D. F. Avalanches, loading and finite size effects in 2d amorphous plasticity: results from a finite element model. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2015, P02011 (2015)

    2015

Show all 101 references
  1. [9]

    Cao, P. et al. Nanomechanics of slip avalanches in amorphous plasticity. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 114, 158–171 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    & Maloney, C

    Tyukodi, B., Vandembroucq, D. & Maloney, C. E. Avalanches, thresholds, and diffusion in mesoscale amorphous plasticity. Physical Review E 100, 043003 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    Nataf, G. F. et al. Avalanches in compressed porous si o 2-based materials. Physical Review E 90, 022405 (2014)

    2014

  4. [12]

    Nataf, G. F. et al. Predicting failure: acoustic emission of berlinite under compression. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 26, 275401 (2014).420

    2014

  5. [13]

    & Main, I

    Kun, F., Varga, I., Lennartz-Sassinek, S. & Main, I. G. Rupture cascades in a discrete element model of a porous sedimentary rock. Physical review letters 112, 065501 (2014)

    2014

  6. [14]

    Bar´ o, J. et al. Experimental evidence of accelerated seismic release without critical failure in acoustic emissions of compressed nanoporous materials. Physical review letters 120, 245501 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    & Salje, E

    Chen, Y., Ding, X., Fang, D., Sun, J. & Salje, E. K. Acoustic emission from porous collapse and moving dislocations in granular mg-ho alloys under compression and tension. Scientific Reports 9, 1330 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    & Stanley, H

    Zapperi, S., Cizeau, P., Durin, G. & Stanley, H. E. Dynamics of a ferromagnetic domain wall: Avalanches, depinning transition, and the barkhausen effect. Physical Review B 58, 6353 (1998). 14

    1998

  9. [17]

    Repain, V. et al. Creep motion of a magnetic wall: Avalanche size divergence. Europhysics Letters 68, 460 (2004)

    2004

  10. [18]

    & Laurson, L

    Herranen, T. & Laurson, L. Barkhausen noise from precessional domain wall motion. Physical Review Letters 122,430 117205 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    F., Pesquera, D

    Casals, B., Nataf, G. F., Pesquera, D. & Salje, E. K. Avalanches from charged domain wall motion in batio3 during ferroelectric switching. APL Materials 8 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    Shao, G. et al. Acoustic emission study on avalanche dynamics of ferroelectric switching in lead zirconate titanate ceramics. Journal of Applied Physics 132 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    & Gollub, J

    Nasuno, S., Kudrolli, A., Bak, A. & Gollub, J. P. Time-resolved studies of stick-slip friction in sheared granular layers. Physical Review E 58, 2161 (1998)

    1998

  14. [22]

    Lherminier, S. et al. Continuously sheared granular matter reproduces in detail seismicity laws. Physical review letters 122, 218501 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    & Alava, M

    Salminen, L., Tolvanen, A. & Alava, M. J. Acoustic emission from paper fracture. Physical Review Letters 89, 185503440 (2002)

    2002

  16. [24]

    & Alava, M

    Rosti, J., Koivisto, J. & Alava, M. J. Statistics of acoustic emission in paper fracture: precursors and criticality. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2010, P02016 (2010)

    2010

  17. [25]

    Laurson, L. et al. Evolution of the average avalanche shape with the universality class. Nature communications 4, 2927 (2013)

    2013

  18. [26]

    & Grasso, J.-R

    Weiss, J. & Grasso, J.-R. Acoustic emission in single crystals of ice. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 101, 6113–6117 (1997)

    1997

  19. [27]

    & Marsan, D

    Weiss, J. & Marsan, D. Three-dimensional mapping of dislocation avalanches: clustering and space/time coupling. Science 299, 89–92 (2003)

    2003

  20. [28]

    & Grasso, J.-R

    Miguel, M.-C., Vespignani, A., Zapperi, S., Weiss, J. & Grasso, J.-R. Intermittent dislocation flow in viscoplastic450 deformation. Nature 410, 667–671 (2001)

    2001

  21. [29]

    Weiss, J. et al. From mild to wild fluctuations in crystal plasticity. Physical review letters 114, 105504 (2015)

    2015

  22. [30]

    Vinogradov, A. et al. On the limits of acoustic emission detectability for twinning. Materials Letters 183, 417–419 (2016)

    2016

  23. [31]

    & M´ athis, K

    Vinogradov, A. & M´ athis, K. Acoustic emission as a tool for exploring deformation mechanisms in magnesium and its alloys in situ. JOM 68, 3057–3062 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    & Salje, E

    Chen, Y., Gou, B., Ding, X., Sun, J. & Salje, E. K. Real-time monitoring dislocations, martensitic transformations and detwinning in stainless steel: Statistical analysis and machine learning. Journal of Materials Science & Technology 92, 31–39 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    & Hauˇ sild, P

    ˇCtvrtl ´ ık, R.,ˇCech, J., Tom´ aˇ st ´ ık, J., V´ aclavek, L. & Hauˇ sild, P. Plastic instabilities explored via acoustic emission during460 spherical nanoindentation. Materials Science and Engineering: A 841, 143019 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    Z., Bronstein, E., Dar´ oczi, L., Shilo, D

    T´ oth, L. Z., Bronstein, E., Dar´ oczi, L., Shilo, D. & Beke, D. L. Scaling of average avalanche shapes for acoustic emission during jerky motion of single twin boundary in single-crystalline ni2mnga. Materials 16, 2089 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    & Planes, A

    Vives, E., R` afols, I., Ma˜ nosa, L., Ort ´ ın, J. & Planes, A. Statistics of avalanches in martensitic transformations. i. acoustic emission experiments. Physical Review B 52, 12644 (1995)

    1995

  28. [36]

    & Planes, A

    Vives, E., Soto-Parra, D., Ma˜ nosa, L., Romero, R. & Planes, A. Imaging the dynamics of martensitic transitions using acoustic emission. Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 84, 060101 (2011)

    2011

  29. [37]

    & Trojanov´ a, Z

    M´ athis, K.,ˇCapek, J., Zdraˇ zilov´ a, Z. & Trojanov´ a, Z. Investigation of tension–compression asymmetry of magnesium by use of the acoustic emission technique. Materials Science and Engineering: A 528, 5904–5907 (2011)

    2011

  30. [38]

    & Vives, E

    Planes, A., Ma˜ nosa, L. & Vives, E. Acoustic emission in martensitic transformations. Journal of Alloys and Compounds470 577, S699–S704 (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    Z., Szab´ o, S., Dar´ oczi, L

    T´ oth, L. Z., Szab´ o, S., Dar´ oczi, L. & Beke, D. L. Calorimetric and acoustic emission study of martensitic transformation in single-crystalline ni 2 mnga alloys. Physical Review B 90, 224103 (2014)

    2014

  32. [40]

    Z., Dar´ oczi, L., Szab´ o, S

    T´ oth, L. Z., Dar´ oczi, L., Szab´ o, S. & Beke, D. L. Simultaneous investigation of thermal, acoustic, and magnetic emission during martensitic transformation in single-crystalline ni 2 mnga. Physical Review B 93, 144108 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    & Pilvin, P

    Hauˇ sild, P., Davydov, V., Drahokoupil, J., Landa, M. & Pilvin, P. Characterization of strain-induced martensitic transformation in a metastable austenitic stainless steel. Materials & Design 31, 1821–1827 (2010)

    2010

  34. [42]

    A., Gou, B., Rooke, S

    Casals, B., Dahmen, K. A., Gou, B., Rooke, S. & Salje, E. K. The duration-energy-size enigma for acoustic emission. Scientific reports 11, 5590 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    & Shilo, D

    Bronstein, E., Faran, E., Talmon, R. & Shilo, D. Uncovering avalanche sources via acceleration measurements. Nature480 Communications 15, 7474 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    & Chmel ´ ık, F

    M´ athis, K. & Chmel ´ ık, F. Exploring plastic deformation of metallic materials by the acoustic emission technique.Acoustic emission 23–48 (2012)

    2012

  37. [45]

    ˇCapek, J. et al. Study of the loading mode dependence of the twinning in random textured cast magnesium by acoustic emission and neutron diffraction methods. Materials Science and Engineering: A 602, 25–32 (2014)

    2014

  38. [46]

    & Shashkov, I

    Lebedkina, T., Bougherira, Y., Entemeyer, D., Lebyodkin, M. & Shashkov, I. Crossover in the scale-free statistics of acoustic emission associated with the portevin-le chatelier instability. Scripta Materialia 148, 47–50 (2018)

    2018

  39. [47]

    & Scott, J

    Salje, E., Xue, D., Ding, X., Dahmen, K. & Scott, J. Ferroelectric switching and scale invariant avalanches in bati o 3. Physical Review Materials 3, 014415 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    Ali, S. M. et al. Observations of changes in acoustic emission parameters for varying corrosion defect in reciprocating490 compressor valves. Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10, 253–265 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    & Louchet, F

    Richeton, T., Weiss, J. & Louchet, F. Dislocation avalanches: Role of temperature, grain size and strain hardening. Acta materialia 53, 4463–4471 (2005). 15

    2005

  42. [50]

    Weiss, J. et al. Evidence for universal intermittent crystal plasticity from acoustic emission and high-resolution extens- ometry experiments. Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 76, 224110 (2007)

    2007

  43. [51]

    Isp´ anovity, P. D.et al. Dislocation avalanches are like earthquakes on the micron scale. Nature communications 13, 1–10 (2022)

    2022

  44. [52]

    Chen, Y. et al. Avalanche dynamics of dislocations and cracks under tension in additively manufactured copper. Applied Physics Letters 124 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    C., Grosse, C

    Hidalgo, R. C., Grosse, C. U., Kun, F., Reinhardt, H. W. & Herrmann, H. J. Evolution of percolating force chains in500 compressed granular media. Physical review letters 89, 205501 (2002)

    2002

  46. [54]

    Zaiser, M. et al. Strain bursts in plastically deforming molybdenum micro-and nanopillars. Philosophical Magazine 88, 3861–3874 (2008)

    2008

  47. [55]

    & Ghoniem, N

    Cui, Y., Po, G. & Ghoniem, N. Controlling strain bursts and avalanches at the nano-to micrometer scale. Physical review letters 117, 155502 (2016)

    2016

  48. [56]

    Ugi, D. et al. Irradiation-induced strain localization and strain burst suppression investigated by microcompression and concurrent acoustic emission experiments. Materials Characterization 199, 112780 (2023)

    2023

  49. [57]

    & Isp´ anovity, P

    Berta, D., P´ eterffy, G. & Isp´ anovity, P. D. Dynamic length scale and weakest link behavior in crystal plasticity.Physical Review Materials 7, 013604 (2023)

    2023

  50. [58]

    & Isp´ anovity, P

    Berta, D., Mendei, B. & Isp´ anovity, P. D. Avalanche dynamics and the effect of straining in dislocation systems with510 quenched disorder. Phys. Rev. Mater. 8, 113806 (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    & Isp´ anovity, P

    Berta, D., Kurunczi-Papp, D., Laurson, L. & Isp´ anovity, P. D. On identifying dynamic length scales in crystal plasticity. Acta Materialia 283, 120506 (2025)

    2025

  52. [60]

    Rouet-Leduc, B. et al. Machine learning predicts laboratory earthquakes. Geophysical Research Letters 44, 9276–9282 (2017)

    2017

  53. [61]

    A., Kenel, C., Leinenbach, C

    Shevchik, S. A., Kenel, C., Leinenbach, C. & Wasmer, K. Acoustic emission for in situ quality monitoring in additive manufacturing using spectral convolutional neural networks. Additive Manufacturing 21, 598–604 (2018)

    2018

  54. [62]

    A., Masinelli, G., Kenel, C., Leinenbach, C

    Shevchik, S. A., Masinelli, G., Kenel, C., Leinenbach, C. & Wasmer, K. Deep learning for in situ and real-time quality monitoring in additive manufacturing using acoustic emission. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 15, 5194– 5203 (2019).520

    2019

  55. [63]

    Chen, Y. et al. Multiple avalanche processes in acoustic emission spectroscopy: Multibranching of the energy- amplitude scaling. physica status solidi (b) 259, 2100465 (2022)

    2022

  56. [64]

    & Gan, T.-H

    Tang, J., Soua, S., Mares, C. & Gan, T.-H. A pattern recognition approach to acoustic emission data originating from fatigue of wind turbine blades. Sensors 17, 2507 (2017)

    2017

  57. [65]

    & Chernova, V

    Stepanova, L., Kabanov, S., Ramazanov, I. & Chernova, V. Acoustic-emission procedure for rejecting defects in multiple- pass girth welds. Russian Journal of Nondestructive Testing 55, 898–908 (2019)

    2019

  58. [66]

    & Chernova, V

    Stepanova, L., Ramazanov, I. & Chernova, V. Acoustic and emission analysis of the defect nucleation process in carbon fiber reinforced plastic samples. Transportation Research Procedia54, 320–327 (2021)

    2021

  59. [67]

    Gholizadeh, S., Leman, Z., Baharudin, B. et al. A review of the application of acoustic emission technique in engineering. Struct. Eng. Mech 54, 1075–1095 (2015).530

    2015

  60. [68]

    Muir, C. et al. Damage mechanism identification in composites via machine learning and acoustic emission. npj Com- putational Materials 7, 95 (2021)

    2021

  61. [69]

    S., Magalh˜ aes, M

    Almeida, R. S., Magalh˜ aes, M. D., Karim, M. N., Tushtev, K. & Rezwan, K. Identifying damage mechanisms of composites by acoustic emission and supervised machine learning. Materials & Design 227, 111745 (2023)

    2023

  62. [70]

    K., Suthar, D

    Das, A. K., Suthar, D. & Leung, C. K. Machine learning based crack mode classification from unlabeled acoustic emission waveform features. Cement and Concrete Research 121, 42–57 (2019)

    2019

  63. [71]

    & Jia, J

    Ju, S., Li, D. & Jia, J. Machine-learning-based methods for crack classification using acoustic emission technique. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 178, 109253 (2022)

    2022

  64. [72]

    K., Sasmal, S

    Banjara, N. K., Sasmal, S. & Voggu, S. Machine learning supported acoustic emission technique for leakage detection in pipelines. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 188, 104243 (2020).540

    2020

  65. [73]

    & Kim, J.-M

    Ullah, N., Ahmed, Z. & Kim, J.-M. Pipeline leakage detection using acoustic emission and machine learning algorithms. Sensors 23, 3226 (2023)

    2023

  66. [74]

    & Shanbr, S

    Elforjani, M. & Shanbr, S. Prognosis of bearing acoustic emission signals using supervised machine learning. IEEE Transactions on industrial electronics 65, 5864–5871 (2017)

    2017

  67. [75]

    Asif, K. et al. Machine learning model to predict welding quality using air-coupled acoustic emission and weld inputs. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 1–15 (2022)

    2022

  68. [76]

    Morizet, N. et al. Classification of acoustic emission signals using wavelets and random forests: Application to localized corrosion. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 70, 1026–1037 (2016)

    2016

  69. [77]

    A., Saeidi, F., Meylan, B

    Shevchik, S. A., Saeidi, F., Meylan, B. & Wasmer, K. Prediction of failure in lubricated surfaces using acoustic time– frequency features and random forest algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 13, 1541–1553 (2016).550

    2016

  70. [78]

    Wang, Z. et al. Acoustic emission characterization of natural fiber reinforced plastic composite machining using a random forest machine learning model. Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering 142, 031003 (2020)

    2020

  71. [79]

    Ferrando Chac´ on, J. L. et al. A novel machine learning-based methodology for tool wear prediction using acoustic emission signals. Sensors 21, 5984 (2021)

    2021

  72. [80]

    H., Upadhyay, S

    Pandya, D. H., Upadhyay, S. H. & Harsha, S. P. Fault diagnosis of rolling element bearing with intrinsic mode function of acoustic emission data using apf-knn. Expert Systems with Applications 40, 4137–4145 (2013)

    2013

  73. [81]

    & Bellach, B

    Ech-Choudany, Y., Assarar, M., Scida, D., Morain-Nicolier, F. & Bellach, B. Unsupervised clustering for building a learning database of acoustic emission signals to identify damage mechanisms in unidirectional laminates. Applied 16 Acoustics 123, 123–132 (2017)

    2017

  74. [82]

    & Marques, A

    De Oliveira, R. & Marques, A. Health monitoring of frp using acoustic emission and artificial neural networks. Computers560 & structures 86, 367–373 (2008)

    2008

  75. [83]

    & Sause, M

    Kalafat, S. & Sause, M. G. Acoustic emission source localization by artificial neural networks. Structural Health Monitoring 14, 633–647 (2015)

    2015

  76. [84]

    & Wang, P

    Jierula, A., Wang, S., Oh, T.-M. & Wang, P. Study on accuracy metrics for evaluating the predictions of damage locations in deep piles using artificial neural networks with acoustic emission data. Applied Sciences 11, 2314 (2021)

    2021

  77. [85]

    & De Silva, C

    Xia, M., Li, T., Xu, L., Liu, L. & De Silva, C. W. Fault diagnosis for rotating machinery using multiple sensors and convolutional neural networks. IEEE/ASME transactions on mechatronics 23, 101–110 (2017)

    2017

  78. [86]

    & Salamone, S

    Ebrahimkhanlou, A. & Salamone, S. Single-sensor acoustic emission source localization in plate-like structures using deep learning. Aerospace 5, 50 (2018)

    2018

  79. [87]

    J., Islam, M

    Hasan, M. J., Islam, M. M. & Kim, J.-M. Acoustic spectral imaging and transfer learning for reliable bearing fault570 diagnosis under variable speed conditions. Measurement 138, 620–631 (2019)

    2019

  80. [88]

    K¨ onig, F., Sous, C., Chaib, A. O. & Jacobs, G. Machine learning based anomaly detection and classification of acoustic emission events for wear monitoring in sliding bearing systems. Tribology International 155, 106811 (2021)

    2021

  81. [89]

    & Kundu, A

    Sikdar, S., Liu, D. & Kundu, A. Acoustic emission data based deep learning approach for classification and detection of damage-sources in a composite panel. Composites Part B: Engineering 228, 109450 (2022)

    2022

  82. [90]

    & Schuller, B

    Marchi, E., Vesperini, F., Squartini, S. & Schuller, B. Deep recurrent neural network-based autoencoders for acoustic novelty detection. Computational intelligence and neuroscience 2017, 4694860 (2017)

    2017

  83. [91]

    & Jiang, T

    Zheng, J., Lu, J., Peng, S. & Jiang, T. An automatic microseismic or acoustic emission arrival identification scheme with deep recurrent neural networks. Geophysical Journal International 212, 1389–1397 (2018)

    2018

  84. [92]

    Li, X., Li, J., Qu, Y. & He, D. Gear pitting fault diagnosis using integrated cnn and gru network with both vibration580 and acoustic emission signals. Applied Sciences 9, 768 (2019)

    2019

  85. [93]

    Data-driven wear monitoring for sliding bearings using acoustic emission signals and long short-term memory neural networks

    K¨ onig, F.et al. Data-driven wear monitoring for sliding bearings using acoustic emission signals and long short-term memory neural networks. Wear 476, 203616 (2021)

    2021

  86. [94]

    Ren, F. et al. Recognition of shear and tension signals based on acoustic emission parameters and waveform using machine learning methods. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 171, 105578 (2023)

    2023

  87. [95]

    Johnson, P. A. et al. Laboratory earthquake forecasting: A machine learning competition. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences 118, e2011362118 (2021)

    2021

  88. [96]

    Y., Nikonova, V., Seleznev, M., van den Brink, J

    Kononenko, D. Y., Nikonova, V., Seleznev, M., van den Brink, J. & Chernyavsky, D. An in situ crack detection approach in additive manufacturing based on acoustic emission and machine learning. Additive manufacturing letters 5, 100130 (2023).590

    2023

  89. [97]

    & Lundgren, J

    Tran, T. & Lundgren, J. Drill fault diagnosis based on the scalogram and mel spectrogram of sound signals using artificial intelligence. Ieee Access 8, 203655–203666 (2020)

    2020

  90. [98]

    Hegyi, ´A. I. et al. Micron-scale deformation: A coupled in situ study of strain bursts and acoustic emission. Microscopy and Microanalysis 23, 1076–1081 (2017)

    2017

  91. [99]

    Addison, P. S. The Illustrated Wavelet Transform Handbook (CRC Press, 2017)

    2017

  92. [100]

    & O’Leary, A

    Lee, G., Gommers, R., Waselewski, F., Wohlfahrt, K. & O’Leary, A. Pywavelets: A python package for wavelet analysis. Journal of Open Source Software 4, 1237 (2019)

    2019

  93. [101]

    Shao, X. & Ma, C. A general approach to derivative calculation using wavelet transform. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 69, 157–165 (2003). 17 Supplementary note 1: Relevant time scales600 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 t [s] 0 1 2 3 4 F [mN] F td a) 10 2 10 1 100 10...

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.