Toward quantitative fractography using convolutional neural networks

Ra\'ul Herrero Moreno; Shmuel Osovski; Stylianos Tsopanidis

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 44 references

Toward quantitative fractography using convolutional neural networks

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A convolutional neural network trained only on MgAl2O4 SEM images labels intergranular and transgranular fracture pixels in ceramics, reaching 91.1% mean IoU on the same material and 94% on Al2O3 without retraining.

desk verdict Plausible, transparent proof of concept for CNN-based fracture-mode quantification, but the headline IoU numbers rest on one annotator's labels and 14 test images. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02242 v2 pith:VWEBMPDF submitted 2019-08-01 eess.IV

Stylianos Tsopanidis , Raúl Herrero Moreno , Shmuel Osovski This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.IV

keywords fractographysemanticsegmentationconvolutionalneuralnetworksintergranularfracturetransgranularscanningelectronmicroscopyceramicstransferlearning

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 is trying to establish that a computer can perform quantitative fractography: from scanning electron microscope images of a broken ceramic, a convolutional network can decide, pixel by pixel, whether the crack ran through grains (transgranular) or along grain boundaries (intergranular). This matters because such measurements are currently done by eye, are slow and subjective, and underpin root-cause failure analysis and validation of computational fracture models. The network, trained only on MgAl2O4 images, reaches a total mean IoU of 91.1% on held-out images from the same material and 94% on Al2O3 images without additional training. The paper argues this makes quantitative fractography feasible as a routine, user-independent tool.

What carries the argument

The central object is the U-net, a symmetric encoder-decoder convolutional network for semantic segmentation in which the decoder upsamples with transpose convolutions and concatenates features from the matching encoder stage at each level. The encoder is a deep classification backbone initialized with pre-trained weights and fine-tuned on the fracture dataset, allowing high accuracy with a relatively small annotated set. Training uses categorical cross-entropy loss with the Adam optimizer, and the unannotated background pixels form a void class that is excluded when computing per-class Intersection-over-Union and F-measure. These choices let the model output a class label for every pixel, which is exactly the topographic map fractography needs.

What would settle it

Have several independent fractography experts fully annotate the same SEM test images and compute pairwise expert-expert IoU: if expert agreement is close to the model's 91–94% IoU, the claim is supported, whereas large expert disagreement would show the reported numbers measure agreement with one annotator's subjective labels rather than objective fracture mode.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using a U-net semantic segmentation network fine-tuned on manually annotated SEM images of MgAl2O4 fracture surfaces, the authors classify every pixel of a fracture image as intergranular, transgranular, or background. When the background class is treated as a void and excluded from evaluation, the network reaches a total mean IoU of 91.1% on the held-out MgAl2O4 test set and, without any retraining, 94% on SEM images of Al2O3. The discovery is that learned pixel-wise segmentation transfers across ceramic materials with different grain sizes and surface morphologies, so the relative fractions of the two fracture modes can be read automatically rather than estimated by a human.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the authors' manual annotations are the correct ground truth for intergranular and transgranular fracture, since every reported IoU and F-measure is computed against those annotations and no independent expert labeling is supplied.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Failure analysis can measure the relative area of intergranular versus transgranular fracture directly from SEM images, replacing slow manual tracing with an automated pixel-level count.
The same trained network can be used on a different ceramic material with different feature sizes and no retraining, with reported mean IoU of 94% on alumina.
Automated fracture-mode fractions give computational fracture models a quantitative experimental target: simulation predictions of transgranular versus intergranular area can be compared with measured fractions.
Adding new fracture morphologies such as dimples or fatigue striations is presented as a matter of annotating the new class and retraining the segmentation model.

Reading between the lines

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

The reported cross-material transfer may be inflated by class imbalance, since the authors note that intergranular fracture dominates Al2O3 and is the better-classified class; a balanced dataset with per-class IoU would test this.
The same segmentation approach could be applied to images from other microscopy modes, such as optical fractography or orientation maps, to link fracture path to crystallographic orientation, though the paper only demonstrates SEM secondary-electron images.
An active-learning variant that asks an expert to annotate only low-confidence regions could cut the annotation bottleneck the paper identifies for new materials; the void/background scheme already makes partial annotation natural.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

Quick take: this is one of the first papers to use semantic segmentation to quantify intergranular vs transgranular fracture fractions in ceramics, and the cross-material transfer test is the genuinely new bit. The evaluation is cleaner than most applied DL papers—held-out test images, results reported with and without the background class, public code and data—but the headline numbers are shakier than the abstract suggests.

What the paper does well: it identifies a real bottleneck (manual, qualitative fractography), applies a standard U-net/VGG16 pipeline without overclaiming algorithmic novelty, and explicitly says the reported accuracies are relative to its own partial annotations. It also distinguishes validation accuracy from the final IoU evaluation. That honesty matters.

Where it is soft: the final evidence rests on 8 fully annotated MgAl2O4 test images and 6 Al2O3 images, with no error bars. The stress-test note is right that the deeper problem is not sample size alone—it is the ground truth. Every IoU and F-measure is agreement between the network and one annotator's interpretation. The paper itself admits some pixels are ambiguous 'even in the eyes of the human user,' and ambiguous pixels were either labeled background or excluded. Without a second annotator, inter-annotator agreement, or independent validation, the 91.1% and 94% values are properties of the annotator-network pair, not a stable measure of the algorithm. That cuts against the advertised 'user independent tool.' Plausible, but not yet demonstrated at that strength.

I do not see circularity; training and test are separated, and excluding void pixels is a standard evaluation choice. The brightness-threshold filter is disclosed and minor. Citations look appropriate, with the closest prior work acknowledged.

Bottom line: for materials scientists who want to automate fractography, this is a useful proof of concept, and the released data and code let others build on it. The quantitative claims should be read as preliminary rather than final. A serious referee should see it; I would not desk reject.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript proposes a U-net-based semantic segmentation method to classify SEM fracture surface images into intergranular and transgranular fracture regions, using a network trained on MgAl2O4 images and evaluated on held-out MgAl2O4 and Al2O3 images without additional training. The authors report a total mean IoU of 91.1% on the MgAl2O4 test set after excluding background pixels, a total mean IoU of 94% on Al2O3, and F-measures of 90.7% and 82.4%, respectively. The paper also makes the training data, annotations, and source code publicly available and suggests extensions to other fracture morphologies.

Significance. If the reported accuracies are reproducible, this work would be a useful step toward automated quantitative fractography, with potential applications in failure analysis and in validating computational fracture models. The open data and code, the honest reporting of metrics both with and without void-class exclusion, and the explicit test of cross-material transferability are clear strengths. The main limitation is that all quantitative claims rest on manual annotations from a single source, with no inter-annotator agreement study and only 8 fully annotated MgAl2O4 test images and 6 Al2O3 images behind the headline numbers; the claimed robustness and user independence are therefore not yet fully supported. The paper's contribution is nevertheless valuable as a proof-of-concept if the validation concerns are addressed.

major comments (4)

[Results and discussion (training paragraph); Methods (SEM imaging and Training)] All reported accuracy values (71.2%, 91.1%, 94%, and the F-measures) are computed against manual annotations produced by the authors, but the manuscript provides no inter-annotator agreement study, no independent ground-truth validation, and no explicit annotation protocol beyond selecting 'the most characteristic features' of each fracture mode. The authors themselves state that the accuracy values are 'with respect to the partial annotations that we have manually created.' Because the central claim is a quantitative, user-independent fractography tool, the evaluation must demonstrate that the labels are reproducible across experts; otherwise the headline numbers measure agreement with one annotator's interpretation rather than with an objective standard. Please add an inter-annotator agreement analysis (e.g., pairwise IoU or Cohen's kappa on a subset of images) and report the resulting uncertainty in all headline metrics.
[Results and discussion (fully annotated test images); Transferability] The fully annotated MgAl2O4 evaluation uses only 8 test images, and the Al2O3 transfer evaluation uses only 6 images, with no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or per-image results reported. The manuscript describes the method as 'extensively tested,' but with n=8 and n=6 the reported mean IoU values are highly sensitive to individual images. Please report per-image IoU values, per-class breakdowns, and measures of dispersion for both datasets; if additional test images are not available, this should be explicitly stated as a limit on the strength of the quantitative claims.
[Results and discussion (void-class paragraph); Transferability] The headline evaluation excludes background pixels and pixels with intensity greater than 220 from the ground truth before computing IoU. The network, however, was trained with background as a real class, so false predictions on background areas are not penalized in the reported 91.1% and 94% figures. The paper is transparent in also reporting 71.2% for the same MgAl2O4 images, but the Summary emphasizes the excluded-background number. Please report end-to-end metrics on the fully annotated images, including the background class as part of the evaluation, as the primary accuracy measure, and provide a sensitivity analysis for the high-brightness threshold of 220.
[Transferability] For the Al2O3 transfer test, only total IoU values (78% and 94%) are reported, without per-class IoU for intergranular and transgranular regions. The Summary itself suggests that the high score is 'possibly due to the large dominance of the intergranular fracture which is better classiﬁed in our training set,' which implies that a total IoU dominated by one class can mask poor performance on the minority class. Please report per-class IoU values, class area fractions, and the annotation procedure used for the Al2O3 test images.

minor comments (6)

[Methods (Materials)] The word 'transperent' should be 'transparent' in the description of the Spinel specimens.
[Results and discussion (F-measure paragraph); Transferability] There are minor typographical errors: 'intergranural' should be 'intergranular' in the sentence before Eq. (1), and 'asses' should be 'assess' in the Transferability section.
[Introduction (related work paragraph)] The statement that this is 'the only published work using exclusively machine learning methods for classiﬁcation of fracture surfaces' appears inconsistent with the immediately preceding citation to ref. 21, which uses convolutional neural networks on SEM fracture images; please rephrase to avoid overclaiming.
[Figure 3 and Figure 5 captions] Please specify whether the displayed images are the complete test sets or representative examples; currently the reader cannot tell if Figures 3 and 5 show all 8 MgAl2O4 and 6 Al2O3 test images or only a subset.
[Results and discussion (IoU evaluation)] The high-brightness filter threshold (pixel intensity > 220) is introduced without motivation or a reference; a brief justification or sensitivity check would improve reproducibility.
[Methods (Network Architecture)] The phrase 'transpose convolution (or deconvolution) layer' is imprecise; the operation implemented is a transposed convolution, and 'deconvolution' is ambiguous in the deep learning literature.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the IoU and F-measure results are held-out test evaluations against manual annotations, not restatements of the training inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is empirical rather than definitional. A U-net/VGG16 encoder-decoder is trained on MgAl2O4 SEM images with manual partial annotations, using categorical cross-entropy loss; validation accuracy is monitored during training; then held-out MgAl2O4 test images and untrained Al2O3 images are predicted with the fixed trained weights and scored by IoU and F-measure. No reported quantity is defined in terms of the quantity it is said to predict: the test images were not used for weight updates, so the 91.1% and 94% IoU values are conditional measurements of agreement between the network and manual labels, not forced identities. The paper explicitly limits its own accuracy claim by stating that 'these accuracy values are with respect to the partial annotations that we have manually created,' and it explains that ambiguous or bright pixels were filtered or assigned to the void class; these are evaluation-validity choices, not circular reductions. The reliance on a single annotator's labels is a real data-quality and reproducibility concern, but that concern is about measurement validity, not about the derivation being equivalent to its inputs. The only self-citations ([10], [30], and the data source [41]) provide context, a fracture-surface-roughness correlation, and the MgAl2O4 specimens respectively; none is used to justify the segmentation accuracy or to forbid alternative models. No equation restates a fitted parameter as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. Consequently there is no circular step to exhibit under the requirement that circularity be shown by explicit reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The method is a supervised image-segmentation pipeline whose main dependencies are a pretrained encoder, a chosen architecture, hand-made annotations, and a hand-chosen brightness threshold used in evaluation. Training hyperparameters (learning rate, batch size, epochs) are stated in Methods but do not enter the reported accuracy as fitted constants.

free parameters (1)

High-brightness pixel intensity threshold = 220 (0-255)
Applied to filter test images before IoU calculation; the threshold is hand-chosen and directly affects the reported IoU values (91.1% for MgAl2O4 and 94% for Al2O3), which are computed after removing pixels with intensity above 220.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption SEM secondary-electron image texture reliably distinguishes intergranular from transgranular fracture modes at the pixel level.
The entire method maps pixel appearance to fracture mode; no independent physical measurement validates this correspondence.
domain assumption The authors' manual annotations are a correct ground truth for the fracture modes.
Training and all reported IoU and F-measure values are computed against these annotations; no inter-annotator agreement or independent verification is provided.
domain assumption ImageNet-pretrained VGG16 features transfer to SEM fracture images.
The encoder uses VGG16 weights pretrained on ImageNet (Methods); the paper relies on standard transfer learning without validating feature transfer for this domain.
domain assumption The U-net architecture is suitable for training with small datasets.
U-net was selected after comparing with other architectures (Methods), but the quantitative comparison is not shown; the paper cites the architecture's small-dataset advantage.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Toward quantitative fractography using convolutional neural networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VWEBMPDF

@misc{pith2026190802242,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Toward quantitative fractography using convolutional neural networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VWEBMPDF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02242}
}

abstract

The science of fractography revolves around the correlation between topographic characteristics of the fracture surface and the mechanisms and external conditions leading to their creation. While being a topic of investigation for centuries, it has remained mostly qualitative to date. A quantitative analysis of fracture surfaces is of prime interest for both the scientific community and the industrial sector, bearing the potential for improved understanding on the mechanisms controlling the fracture process and at the same time assessing the reliability of computational models currently being used for material design. With new advances in the field of image analysis, and specifically with machine learning tools becoming more accessible and reliable, it is now feasible to automate the process of extracting meaningful information from fracture surface images. Here, we propose a method of identifying and quantifying the relative appearance of intergranular and transgranular fracture events from scanning electron microscope images. The newly proposed method is based on a convolutional neural network algorithm for semantic segmentation. The proposed method is extensively tested and evaluated against two ceramic material systems ($Al_2O_3$,$MgAl_2O_4$) and shows high prediction accuracy, despite being trained on only one material system ($MgAl_2O_4$). While here attention is focused on brittle fracture characteristics, the method can be easily extended to account for other fracture morphologies, such as dimples, fatigue striations, etc.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02242 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Original (a) and annotated (b) SEM image used in the CNN training. The white areas in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Algorithm classification results for 8 images selected from the test dataset. Blue col [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: A fully-annotated image (a) and the corresponding classification mask (b). The IoU was [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Classification of the SEM images of the Al2O3 fracture surfaces, with size of 1280×1280 pixels. It is important to note that these results are obtained without additional training of the network. 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

[1]

R., Destefani, J

Mills, K., Davis, J. R., Destefani, J. & Dieterich, D. ASM Handbook, Volume 12-Fractography (Asm International Materials Park, OH, 1987)

work page 1987
[2]

The fracture of metals

Tipper, C. The fracture of metals. Metallurgia 39, 133–137 (1949)

work page 1949
[3]

Pineau, A., Benzerga, A. A. & Pardoen, T. Failure of metals i: Brittle and ductile fracture. Acta Materialia 107, 424–483 (2016)

work page 2016
[4]

L., Busso, E

Pineau, A., McDowell, D. L., Busso, E. P. & Antolovich, S. D. Failure of metals ii: Fatigue. Acta Materialia 107, 484–507 (2016)

work page 2016
[5]

Zhang, Q. B. & Zhao, J. Effect of loading rate on fracture toughness and failure micromecha- nisms in marble. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 102, 288–309 (2013)

work page 2013
[6]

& McCauley, J

Hu, G., Chen, C., Ramesh, K. & McCauley, J. Mechanisms of dynamic deformation and dynamic failure in aluminum nitride. Acta materialia 60, 3480–3490 (2012)

work page 2012
[7]

& Rittel, D

Shemtov-Yona, K., ¨Ozcan, M. & Rittel, D. Fractographic characterization of fatigued zirconia dental implants tested in room air and saline solution. Engineering Failure Analysis 96, 298– 310 (2019)

work page 2019
[8]

V ., Berlanga, C

Biezma, M. V ., Berlanga, C. & Argandona, G. Relationship between microstructure and frac- ture types in a uns s32205 duplex stainless steel. Materials Research 16, 965–969 (2013)

work page 2013

Show all 44 references

[9]

& Molinari, J

Kraft, R. & Molinari, J. A statistical investigation of the effects of grain boundary properties on transgranular fracture. Acta Materialia 56, 4739–4749 (2008). 23

2008
[10]

& Srivastava, A

Osovski, S., Needleman, A. & Srivastava, A. Intergranular fracture prediction and microstruc- ture design. International Journal of Fracture216, 135–148 (2019)

2019
[11]

& Liu, L

Hu, W., Wiliem, A., Lovell, B., Barter, S. & Liu, L. Automation of Quantitative Fractog- raphy for Determination of Fatigue Crack Growth Rates with Marker Loads. In 29th ICAF Symposium Nagoya , June (2017)

2017
[12]

Y ., Student, O

Kosarevych, R. Y ., Student, O. Z., Svirs’Ka, L. M., Rusyn, B. P. & Nykyforchyn, H. M. Computer analysis of characteristic elements of fractographic images. Materials Science 48, 474–481 (2013)

2013
[13]

& Shoich, I

Kenjiro, K., Minoshima, K. & Shoich, I. Recognition of Different Fracture Surface Mor- phologies using Computer Image Processing Technique. JSME international journal. Ser. A, Mechanics and material engineering 36, 220–227 (1993)

1993
[14]

Measurement: Journal of the International Measurement Confedera- tion 47, 130–144 (2014)

Characterization of micrographs and fractographs of Cu-strengthened HSLA steel using im- age texture analysis. Measurement: Journal of the International Measurement Confedera- tion 47, 130–144 (2014). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement. 2013.08.030

2014 doi
[15]

& Kobayashi, A

Yang, W.-J., Yu, C.-T. & Kobayashi, A. S. Sem quantiﬁcation of transgranular vs intergranular fracture. Journal of the American Ceramic Society 74, 290–295 (1991)

1991
[16]

& Lewis, D

Chowdhury, A., Kautz, E., Yener, B. & Lewis, D. Image driven machine learning methods for microstructure recognition. Computational Materials Science 123, 176–187 (2016). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2016.05.034. 24

2016 doi
[18]

Li, W., Field, K. G. & Morgan, D. Automated defect analysis in electron microscopic im- ages. npj Computational Materials 4, 1–9 (2018). URL http://dx.doi.org/10. 1038/s41524-018-0093-8

2018
[19]

Gola, J. et al. Advanced microstructure classiﬁcation by data mining methods. Computa- tional Materials Science 148, 324–335 (2018). URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j. commatsci.2018.03.004

2018 doi
[20]

X., Prieto-Ortiz, F

Bastidas-Rodriguez, M. X., Prieto-Ortiz, F. A. & Espejo, E. Fractographic classiﬁcation in metallic materials by using computer vision. Engineering Failure Analysis 59, 237–252 (2016). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2015.10.008

2016 doi
[21]

& Juneviˇcius, R

Konovalenko, I., Maruschak, P., Prentkovskis, O. & Juneviˇcius, R. Investigation of the Rupture Surface of the Titanium Alloy Using Convolutional Neural Networks. Materials 11, 2467 (2018)

2018
[22]

& Yuille, A

Chen, L.-C., Papandreou, G., Kokkinos, I., Murphy, K. & Yuille, A. L. Semantic im- age segmentation with deep convolutional nets and fully connected crfs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.7062 (2014). 25

2014 arXiv
[23]

& Zisserman, A

Simonyan, K. & Zisserman, A. Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition. CoRR 1–14 (2014). URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.1556. 1409. 1556

2014 arXiv
[24]

& Sun, J

He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S. & Sun, J. Deep residual learning for image recognition. InProceed- ings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, vol. 2016-Decem, 770–778 (2016). arXiv:1512.03385v1

2016 arXiv
[25]

Szegedy, C. et al. Going deeper with convolutions.Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition 07-12-June, 1–9 (2015). arXiv: 1409.4842v1

2015 arXiv
[26]

Donahue, J. et al. DeCAF: A Deep Convolutional Activation Feature for Generic Visual Recognition. CoRR abs/1310.1 (2013). URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.1531. 1310.1531

2013 arXiv
[27]

Zeiler, M. D. & Fergus, R. Visualizing and Understanding Convolutional Networks. CoRR abs/1311.2 (2013). URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.2901. 1311.2901

2013 arXiv
[28]

Lin, T.-Y . et al. Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Context. In Fleet, D., Pajdla, T., Schiele, B. & Tuytelaars, T. (eds.) Computer Vision – ECCV 2014, 740–755 (Springer Inter- national Publishing, Cham, 2014)

2014
[29]

Russakovsky, O. et al. ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge. International Journal of Computer Vision 115, 211–252 (2015). arXiv:1409.0575v3. 26

2015 arXiv
[30]

& Osovski, S

Barak, Y ., Srivastava, A. & Osovski, S. Correlating fracture toughness and fracture surface roughness via correlation length scale. International Journal of Fracture1–12 (2019)

2019
[31]

A Survey of Semantic Segmentation

Thoma, M. A Survey of Semantic Segmentation. CoRR abs/1602.0, 1–16 (2016). URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.06541. 1602.06541

2016 arXiv
[32]

& Koller, D

Gould, S., Rodgers, J., Cohen, D., Elidan, G. & Koller, D. Multi-class segmentation with relative location prior. International Journal of Computer Vision 80, 300–316 (2008)

2008
[33]

& Criminisi, A

Shotton, J., Winn, J., Rother, C. & Criminisi, A. TextonBoost: Joint appearance, shape and context modeling for multi-class object recognition and segmentation. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artiﬁcial Intelligence and Lecture Notes ...

2006
[34]

& Hinton, G

Nair, V . & Hinton, G. E. Rectiﬁed Linear Units Improve Restricted Boltzmann Machines. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on International Conference on Machine Learning, 3 (2010). URL https://www.cs.toronto.edu/{˜}hinton/absps/ reluICML.pdf. 1111.6189v1

2010 arXiv
[35]

& Darrell, T

Long, J., Shelhamer, E. & Darrell, T. Fully Convolutional Networks for Semantic Segmenta- tion. In The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)(2015)

2015
[36]

& Cipolla, R

Badrinarayanan, V ., Kendall, A. & Cipolla, R. SegNet: A Deep Convolutional Encoder- Decoder Architecture for Image Segmentation. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 39, 2481–2495 (2017). URL http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pubmed/28060704. arXiv:1511.0...

2017
[37]

& Brox, T

Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P. & Brox, T. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedi- cal image segmentation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artiﬁcial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) 9351, 234–241 (2015). arXiv:1505.04597v1

2015 arXiv
[38]

& Others

Chollet, F. & Others. Keras. \url{https://keras.io} (2015)

2015
[39]

Abadi, M. et al. TensorFlow: Large-Scale Machine Learning on Heterogeneous Distributed Systems. vol. abs/1603.0 (2016). URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.04467. 1603.04467

2016 arXiv
[40]

Martin, A. et al. {TensorFlow}: Large-Scale Machine Learning on Heterogeneous Systems (2015). URL https://www.tensorflow.org/

2015
[41]

& Rittel, D

Blumer, D. & Rittel, D. The inﬂuence of microstructure on the static and dynamic strength of transparent magnesium aluminate spinel (mgal2o4). Journal of the European Ceramic Society 38, 3618–3634 (2018)

2018
[42]

Quinn, G. D. Fractography of ceramics and glasses (National Institute of Standards and Technology Washington, DC, 2016)

2016
[43]

& Zisserman, A

Dutta, A. & Zisserman, A. The {VIA} Annotation Software for Images, Audio and Video. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.10699 (2019)

2019 arXiv
[44]

& Zissermann, A

Dutta, A., Gupta, A. & Zissermann, A. {VGG} Image Annotator ( {VIA}). http://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/˜vgg/software/via/ (2016). 28

2016
[45]

Kingma, D. P. & Ba, J. Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization. CoRR 1–15 (2014). URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6980. 1412.6980. 29

2014 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

R., Destefani, J

Mills, K., Davis, J. R., Destefani, J. & Dieterich, D. ASM Handbook, Volume 12-Fractography (Asm International Materials Park, OH, 1987)

work page 1987

[2] [2]

The fracture of metals

Tipper, C. The fracture of metals. Metallurgia 39, 133–137 (1949)

work page 1949

[3] [3]

Pineau, A., Benzerga, A. A. & Pardoen, T. Failure of metals i: Brittle and ductile fracture. Acta Materialia 107, 424–483 (2016)

work page 2016

[4] [4]

L., Busso, E

Pineau, A., McDowell, D. L., Busso, E. P. & Antolovich, S. D. Failure of metals ii: Fatigue. Acta Materialia 107, 484–507 (2016)

work page 2016

[5] [5]

Zhang, Q. B. & Zhao, J. Effect of loading rate on fracture toughness and failure micromecha- nisms in marble. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 102, 288–309 (2013)

work page 2013

[6] [6]

& McCauley, J

Hu, G., Chen, C., Ramesh, K. & McCauley, J. Mechanisms of dynamic deformation and dynamic failure in aluminum nitride. Acta materialia 60, 3480–3490 (2012)

work page 2012

[7] [7]

& Rittel, D

Shemtov-Yona, K., ¨Ozcan, M. & Rittel, D. Fractographic characterization of fatigued zirconia dental implants tested in room air and saline solution. Engineering Failure Analysis 96, 298– 310 (2019)

work page 2019

[8] [8]

V ., Berlanga, C

Biezma, M. V ., Berlanga, C. & Argandona, G. Relationship between microstructure and frac- ture types in a uns s32205 duplex stainless steel. Materials Research 16, 965–969 (2013)

work page 2013