Deep Learning Based Steel Pipe Weld Defect Detection

Dingming Yanga , Yanrong Cuia* , Zeyu Yub and Hongqiang Yuanc

a
School of Computer Science, Yangtze University, Jingzhou 434023, China;

b
School of Electronics & Information, Yangtze University, Jingzhou 434023, China;

c
School of Urban Construction, Yangtze University, Jingzhou 434000, China;
Deep Learning Based Steel Pipe Weld Defect Detection

Steel pipes are widely used in high-risk and high-pressure scenarios such as oil,
chemical, natural gas, shale gas, etc. If there is some defect in steel pipes, it will
lead to serious adverse consequences. Applying object detection in the field of
deep learning to pipe weld defect detection and identification can effectively
improve inspection efficiency and promote the development of industrial
automation. Most predecessors used traditional computer vision methods applied
to detect defects of steel pipe weld seams. However, traditional computer vision
methods rely on prior knowledge and can only detect defects with a single
feature, so it is difficult to complete the task of multi-defect classification, while
deep learning is end-to-end. In this paper, the state-of-the-art single-stage object
detection algorithm YOLOv5 is proposed to be applied to the field of steel pipe
weld defect detection, and compared with the two-stage representative object
detection algorithm Faster R-CNN. The experimental results show that applying
YOLOv5 to steel pipe weld defect detection can greatly improve the accuracy,
complete the multi-classification task, and meet the criteria of real-time detection.

Keywords: deep learning; object detection; YOLOv5; X-ray non-destructive

testing; weld defect

Introduction

Steel pipes are widely used in high-risk and high-pressure scenarios such as oil,

chemical, natural gas, shale gas, etc. If there is some defect in steel pipes, it will lead to

serious adverse consequences. With the growing demand for steel pipe in China, more

and more enterprises and even countries begin to pay attention to the quality and

performance of steel pipe, and the defect detection and evaluation technology of steel

pipe has become a research topic that researchers are keen on. At present, there are

manual testing and X-ray testing. X-ray testing is one of the main methods for industrial

non-destructive testing (NDT), and the test results have been used as an important basis

for defect analysis and quality assessment of weld. X-ray detection can effectively

detect the internal defects of steel pipe, but manual participation is still needed to
determine the type and location of weld defects of steel pipe (Yun et al.

2009).Therefore, Applying object detection in the field of deep learning to the defect

detection and identification of steel pipe welds can effectively improve the detection

efficiency and promote the development of industrial automation.

With the wide application of artificial intelligence in the field of computer

vision, machine learning and deep learning are widely used in object detection and

image classification. Most predecessors used traditional computer vision methods to

detect steel pipe weld defects (Yun et al. 2009; Wang et al. 2008; Malarvel et al. 2021;

Mahmoudi et al. 2009). For example, Wang et al. (2008) used Multi-thresholds+SVM

(Support Vector Machine) method to achieve an accuracy of 96.15% for X-ray image

detection of steel pipe weld cracks; Malarvel et al. (2021) used OSTU + MSVM-rbf

(Multi–class Support Vector Machine) method to achieve multi-class detection of weld

defects in X-ray images and achieved an accuracy of 95.23%. Nowadays, object

detection algorithms based on deep learning are constantly developing, the recognition

accuracy and detection time have been greatly improved compared with traditional

computer vision methods. Previous studies have achieved good results, but there are

also some shortcomings. Such as:

• Accuracy rate needs to be further improved;

• Different types of defects make it difficult to do multiple classifications with

traditional computer vision methods;

• Detection time is too long to achieve real-time detection, so it is difficult to

apply to the industrial field;

In view of the above problems, this paper applies the state-of-the-art YOLOv5 to the

defect detection task of steel pipe weld.

Materials and Methods

Profile of YOLOv5

Joseph Redmon et al. (2016a) published YOLOv1 in 2015, which pioneered the single-

stage object detection algorithm. This algorithm divides images into 7*7 grids, and each

grid is responsible for the classification of objects and coordinate regression at the same

time. Joseph Redmon et al. (2016b) published YOLO9000 in 2016 to make up for the

shortcoming of YOLOv1 with fewer detection categories and low accuracy, but the

detection of small targets is still poor. Joseph Redmon et al. (2018) published YOLOv3

in 2018, which draws on the idea of FPN (Tsung-Yi Lin et al. 2017), and solves the

detection problem of small objects. Alexey Bochkovskiy et al. (2020) improved their

algorithm by absorbing the tricks of various fields on the basis of the network structure

of YOLOv3 and released YOLOv4, which greatly improved the detection efficiency

and AP. Two months later Ultralytics (a company) released YOLOv5 (Jocher et al.

2021).

According to the size of the model, YOLOv5 is divided into four versions:

YOLOv5s, YOLOv5m, YOLOv5l and YOLOv5x. The larger the model is, the higher

the accuracy will be, and the detection time of a single image will increase. Figure 1

shows the network structure of YOLOv5s. The technologies used in the Input of

YOLOv5 include Mosaic data enhancement (Sangdoo et al. 2019), adaptive anchor

calculation, and adaptive image scaling. The technology used in Backbone includes

Focus structure and CSP structure. The techniques used in Neck include FPN+PAN

structure; In Prediction, GIoU_Loss(Hamid Rezatofighi et al. 2019) is used to replace

the ordinary IoU calculation method.YOLOv5 is slightly less capable than YOLOv4 in

terms of performance, but much more flexible and faster than YOLOv4, so it has an

advantage in model deployment.

 Backbone Neck Prediction

Focus CBL CSP1_1 CBL CSP1_3 CBL CSP1_3 CBL SPP CSP2_1 CBL Up-sample

Concat
CSP2_1 CBL Up-sample

Concat
CSP2_1 Conv
608*608*3 76*76*255
Input

CBL = Conv BN Leaky ReLU

CBL

Concat
CSP2_1 Conv
38*38*255
Res unit = CBL CBL Add

CBL

Concat
CSP2_1 Conv
CSP1_X = CBL 19*19*255
Res unit Conv Concat
X number of Res un... BN Leaky ReLU CBL
Conv

slice M axpooling

CSP2_X = CBL 2*X CBL Conv slice M axpooling

Concat

Concat

Concat
BN Leaky ReLU CBL Focus = CBL SPP = CBL
Conv slice M axpooling

slice
Viewer does not support full SVG 1.1

Figure 1. Network structure of YOLOv5s.

Acquisition of dataset

The raw video images of X-ray are provided by the cooperating factories in RAW

format. Through batch processing, the same width and height are cut out and exported

as JPG images, and 3408 original images of weld defects of 8 types of steel pipe are

obtained. Finally, Labelme (a software to mark object) was used to mark the defect area

and defect category of steel pipe weld, which was then exported as the standard dataset

format of YOLO or PASCAL VOC2007 (Ren et al. 2017). Figure 2 shows the types of

steel pipe weld defects. The collected samples have a total of 8 types of defects, which

are Blowhole, Undercut, Broken arc, Crack, Overlap, Slag inclusion, Lack of fusion,

and Hollow bead. Table 1 shows the statistical table of steel pipe weld defects samples.

(a) Blowhole (b) Undercut (c) Broken arc (d) Crack

(e) Overlap (f) Slag inclusion (g) Lack of fusion (h) Hollow bead
Figure 2. The example of steel pipe defects.

Table 1. Profile of sample images for 8 types of defects.

Defect name Number of original samples Number of augmented samples Label

Blowhole 1339 12051 blow-hole

Undercut 35 315 undercut

Broken arc 531 4779 broken-arc

Crack 119 1071 crack

Overlap 219 1971 overlap

Slag inclusion 136 1224 slag-inclusion

Lack of fusion 416 3744 lack-of-fusion

Hollow bead 613 567 hollow-bead

Totals 3408 30672 ——

Data preprocessing

Raw dataset analysis

First of all, the original data should be analyzed so as to serve as a reference when

setting parameters for deep learning and to accelerate the training speed. It can be seen

from observation that X-ray pictures are black and white pictures, which can be

converted into single-channel grayscale images. In this way, 2/3 pixels data can be

compressed and the training speed will be accelerated. Then use Matplotlib (a python

lib to draw diagram) to draw the scatter plot of the center point position of the bounding

box and the length & width of the bounding box in turn to see if there are any extreme

aspect ratios and abnormal data. As shown in Figure 3, it can be concluded that most

bounding boxes are wider than their height and that the bounding boxes for cracked

defects are close to a square. Secondly, the displacement of most defects is in the

horizontal direction, and the displacement of Overlap defects is from the bottom right to

the top left. The distribution of scatter is more even, and there are not many abnormal
data.

Figure 3. The analysis of original samples.

Motion deblurring

When the cylindrical steel pipe rotates in the assembly line, there will have relative

movement between the X-ray camera used to film the weld defects of the steel pipe and

the steel pipe in the direction of the weld. Moreover, the exposure time of the camera to

shoot a single frame of weld defects is too long, so the motion blur will be generated.

According to the research of Kupyn et al. (2018), motion blur will have an impact on

the accuracy of object detection algorithm of YOLO series, so it is necessary to remove

motion blur in some images. The process of motion deblurring is shown in Figure 4.

First of all, we use the Hough Transform to detect the straight line at the weld edge. The

direction of motion of the steel pipe can be estimated from the angle of the straight line

(that is, the angle of image blur), and the distance of motion blur can be obtained from

the frame rate of the camera and the speed of the steel pipe rotation. Then we used the

estimated blurry kernel to deconvolution the original blurry image to get the result in

Figure 4c.

(a) Original blurry image (b) Image after Hough Transform (c) Deblurred image
Figure 4. The process of blind motion deblurring.

Data enhancement

Convolutional neural network (CNN) usually requires a large number of training

samples to effectively extract image features and classify them. in order to effectively

improve data quality and increase data feature diversity, the original data was enhanced

to 9 times the original data by using light change, random rotation, random cut out,

Gaussian noise addition, horizontal flipping, random adjustment of saturation, contrast

and sharpness, random resize and random clipping. Thus, the over-fitting in the training

stage is effectively reduced and the generalization ability of the network is improved.

Figure 5 shows an example of what happens after data enhancement.

(a) Original image (b) Image after change light (c) Image after rotate

(d) Image after cutout (e) Image after gaussian noise (f) Image after horizontal flip

(g) Image after adjust color (h) Image after resize (i) Image after crop

Figure 5. The example after data augmentation.

Experiments

Experimental environment

Table 2 and Table 3 are the hardware environment and software environment of the

experiment in this paper.

Table 2. The environment of hardware.

Phase CPU GPU RAM

Train Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2623 v4 @ 2.60GHz Quadro P5000 30GB

Test Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4710MQ CPU @ 2.50GHz GTX950M 8GB

Table 3. The environment of software.

Phase OS Python Model

Train Linux-5.4.0-65-generic-x86_64-with-glibc2.10 3.8.5 Official YOLOv5x

Test Windows 10 professional edition 3.8.0 Official YOLOv5x

Experimental process

In this paper, the state-of-the-art deep learning algorithm YOLOv5 is used to train the

detection model of steel pipe weld defects. After manually annotating the original

image, the dataset is obtained through data enhancement, and then the dataset is

converted into a single channel grayscale image. Because the dataset is relatively small,

it is divided into training set and validation set in a ratio of 8:2. An experimental process

designed in this paper is shown in Figure 6. After several epochs of YOLOv5 training,

the training set and validation set obtained a model containing weight and bias

parameters. In this paper, Recall, Precision, F1 score, mAP(mean of Average Precision)

and detection time of single image were used as evaluation indexes.

 No

Training Set YOLOv5x Model Training Reach the Criterion? Yes Detection Result

Rcall Precision F1 mAP

Original Data Data Preprocessing Validation Set

Engineering of Model
Viewer does not support full SVG 1.1

Figure 6. The flowchart of experiment.

The calculation method of Precision is shown in Formula (1). TP is the sample

identified as true positive. In this paper, it is the identification of correct weld defects of

steel pipe. FP is the sample identified as false positive. In this paper, it is the weld

defect of steel pipe identified wrongly. The formula describes the proportion of true

positive in the identified pictures of steel pipe weld defects. The calculation method of

Recall is shown in Formula (2). FN is the sample identified as false negative, in this

paper is the background of error identification; The formula describes the ratio of the

number of correctly identified steel pipe weld defects to the number of all steel pipe

weld defects in the dataset. The calculation method of F1 score is shown in Formula (3).

When Precision and Recall are required to be high, F1 score can be used as an

evaluation index. The calculation method of AP is shown in Formula (4). AP is

introduced to solve the problem of limitation of Precision, Recall and F1 score single

point value. In order to obtain an indicator that can reflect the global performance, In

this paper, using the Interpolated average precision.

𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
Precision = �1�
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 + 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹

𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
Recall = �2�
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 + 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹

2 ∗ 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 ∗ 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
𝐹𝐹1 = �3�
𝑃𝑃𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 + 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
 𝑃𝑃interp (𝑘𝑘) = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑃𝑃(𝑘𝑘�)
� ≥𝑘𝑘
𝑘𝑘
𝑁𝑁
�4�
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = �   𝑃𝑃interp(𝑘𝑘) Δ𝑟𝑟(𝑘𝑘)
𝑘𝑘=1

Analysis of experimental results

Identify results and data analysis

The detection result for 8 types of defects are shown in Figure 7. On the whole, both the

position of defects and the confidence of classification are relatively good. Undercut's

good performance in the case of a relatively small number of samples could not be

attributed to the 8 data enhancement methods used in the data preprocessing stage of

this paper and Mosaic data enhancement by YOLOv5. The Broken can still be

identified as the same defect and obtain good confidence even if they are very different

in appearance. Among them, the Slag inclusion defects are not obvious to distinguish

from the background in the naked eye, and they are similar to the Undercut defects in

appearance. Benefiting from repeated training, good results can also be achieved.

(a) Blowhole (b) Undercut (c) Broken arc (d) Crack

(e) Overlap (f) Slag inclusion (g) Lack of fusion (h) Hollow bead

Figure 7. The result of detection.

As shown in Table 4, four evaluation indexes of each defect category in the last

epoch are presented. On the whole, except for Blowhole defect, the accuracy of all other

defects can be maintained between 0.962 and 1.00, the recall rate between 0.99 and
1.00, and the F1 score between 0.998 and 1.00. Blowhole defect due to its small defect

target, a single steel pipe sometimes has dense pores, so the accuracy is lower than other

types of defects. In the 218th epoch, the mAP of the model reached 99.02%, but after

633 epochs of training, the mAP decreased to 98.71%, showing some degree of over-

fitting. The best training model saved in this paper can be used in the actual steel pipe

weld defect detection and applied in the industrial production environment.

Table 4. Some statistical parameters of confusion matrix

lack-of- hollow-
Type blowhole undercut broken-arc crack overlap slag-inclusion
fusion bead

Precision 0.505 1.00 0.962 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99

Recall 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00

F1 score 0.661 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.994

AP 0.951 0.995 0.992 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.978 0.995

[email protected] 0.987

Performance comparison of weld defect detection algorithm for steel pipe

As shown in Figure 8, we used the same dataset to conduct experiments respectively in

Faster R-CNN (Ren et al. 2017; Bubbliiiing 2020) and YOLOv5 (Jocher et al. 2021),

then compared the precision data and total loss data generated during the experiment.

As shown in Figure 8a, Faster R-CNN calculates the precision mean after each epoch of

training, and has a tendency of descending and then slowly climbing, with unstable

values in the second half. YOLOv5, on the other hand, started off with a shaky

precision, then slowly climbed up and settled down. As shown in Figure 8b, the total

loss of Faster R-CNN tended to be stable between 50-100 epoch, and then had two

relatively large wave peaks. Since Faster R-CNN uses the Adam (Diederik Kingma et

al. 2014) optimizer, it can converge faster than SGD (Stochastic Gradient Descent). The

initial total loss of YOLOv5 was relatively small and tended to be stable between 100-
150 epoch, with a small peak around 160 epoch. YOLOv5 also uses the optimizer

Adam, and the initial value of Momentum is 0.999. In general, compared with the

Faster R-CNN, YOLOv5 has better convergence speed in precision & total loss and

stability after convergence than the Faster R-CNN.

Figure 8. Compare with faster R-CNN

As shown in Table 5, a comparison is made between Multi-thresholds+SVM,

OSTU+SVM, Faster R-CNN+ResNet50 and YOLOv5. On the whole, the defect

detection algorithm based on deep learning is better than the defect detection algorithm

based on traditional computer vision in both performance and detection time of a single

image. Among them, Multi-thresholds+SVM algorithm takes the longest time.

Although the accuracy of the Multi-threshold+SVM algorithm is better than that of

Faster R-CNN, the detection time of single image is not as good as Faster R-CNN.

YOLOv5 is superior to Faster R-CNN in both accuracy and detection time of a single

image. The detection time of a single image satisfies the engineering work of the model

in the later stage of this paper. YOLOv5's detection speed is to be expected because it’s

one-stage. Another kind of object detection algorithms is two-stage. For example, the

Faster R-CNN algorithm forms region proposals (which may contain areas of the

object) first and then classifies each region proposal (also corrects the position at mean
time). This type of algorithm is relatively slow because it requires multiple runs of the

detection and classification process.

Table 5. Performance comparison of steel pipe defection algorithms

Object detection model Accuracy or Precision/% Detection time per picture/s

Multi-thresholds+SVM (Wang et al. 2008) 96.15 acc 180 (Mahmoudi et al. 2009)

OSTU+MSVM-rbf (Malarvel et al. 2021) 95.23 acc ——

Faster R-CNN+ResNet50 (Ren et al. 2017) 95.5 acc([email protected]=78.1) 0.437

YOLOv5x (Jocher et al. 2021) 97.8 pre([email protected]=98.7) 0.120

Conclusion

In the field of steel pipe weld defect detection, deep learning method has more

advantages than traditional computer vision method. Convolutional neural network does

not need to extract image features manually, and can realize end-to-end input detection

and classified output. The research of this paper has the following three contributions:

• Applying the state-of-the-art object detection algorithm YOLOv5 to the field of

steel pipe weld defects detection, The detection accuracy of steel pipe weld

defects and the detection time of a single image are pushed to a new height

level, with the accuracy reaching 97.8% ([email protected]=98.7%). Under the

YOLOv5x model testing, the detection time of a single picture is 0.12s

(GPU=GTX950M), which meets the real-time detection on the steel pipe

production line;

• Did a lot of work in the data preprocessing stage, combining the traditional data

enhancement method with the Mosaic data enhancement method of YOLOv5,

which not only greatly increased the size of the dataset, but also effectively

reduced the over-fitting of the training;

 • The results of YOLOv5 were compared with previous defect detection

algorithms, and the advantages of YOLOv5 in model deployment and model

engineering were demonstrated on the premise of comprehensive indicators.

This study can provide methods and ideas for real-time automatic detection of

weld defects of steel pipe in industrial production environment, and lay a foundation for

industrial automation. Although this paper uses state-of-the-art deep learning algorithm

and convolutional neural network model for real-time detection of steel pipe weld

defects in industrial production scenarios, its performance and performance are also

relatively good. However, in the case of limited dataset, other defects which not in the

dataset cannot be correctly identified. In this case, we can use traditional computer

vision or mathematical methods to build an expert system to identify other defects that

do not appear in the dataset. It is also possible to design an automatic updating model

system in combination with few-shot learning in engineering, which is used to manually

label the type and bounding box coordinate information by the quality inspector when

the defect cannot be identified, so that the system can automatically learn and update the

model. These deficiencies point out the direction and provide ideas for the follow-up

research.

References

Yun, J. P., Choi, S., Kim, J. W., and Kim, S. W. 2009. Automatic detection of cracks in
raw steel block using Gabor filter optimized by univariate dynamic encoding
algorithm for searches (uDEAS). Ndt & E International, 42(5), 389-397.
Wang, Y., Sun, Y., Lv, P., and Wang, H. 2008. Detection of line weld defects based on
multiple thresholds and support vector machine. Ndt & E International, 41(7),
517-524.
Malarvel, M., and Singh, H. 2021. An autonomous technique for weld defects detection
and classification using multi-class support vector machine in X-radiography
image. Optik, 231, 166342.
Joseph Redmon, Santosh Divvala, Ross Girshick, and Ali Farhadi. 2016a. You Only
Look Once: Unified, Real-Time Object Detection. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1506.02640.
Joseph Redmon, and Ali Farhadi. 2016b. YOLO9000: Better, Faster, Stronger. arXiv
preprint arXiv:1612.08242.
Joseph Redmon, and Ali Farhadi. 2018. YOLOv3: An Incremental Improvement. arXiv
preprint arXiv:1804.02767.
Tsung-Yi Lin, Piotr Dollár, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, Bharath Hariharan, and Serge
Belongie. 2017. Feature Pyramid Networks for Object Detection. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1612.03144.
Alexey Bochkovskiy, Chien-Yao Wang, and Hong-Yuan Mark Liao. 2020. YOLOv4:
Optimal Speed and Accuracy of Object Detection. arXiv preprint
arXiv:2004.10934.
Jocher, G., Nishimura, K., Mineeva, T., Vilariño, and R. YOLOv5. Accessed March 1,
2021. https://github.com/ultralytics/yolov5.
Sangdoo Yun, Dongyoon Han, Seong Joon Oh, Sanghyuk Chun, Junsuk Choe, and
Youngjoon Yoo. 2019. CutMix: Regularization Strategy to Train Strong
Classifiers with Localizable Features. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.04899.
Hamid Rezatofighi, Nathan Tsoi, JunYoung Gwak, Amir Sadeghian, Ian Reid, and
Silvio Savarese. 2019. Generalized Intersection over Union: A Metric and A
Loss for Bounding Box Regression. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.09630.
Xinni Liu, Kamarul Hawari Ghazali, Fengrong Han, and Izzeldin Ibrahim Mohamed.
2020. Automatic Detection of Oil Palm Tree from UAV Images Based on the
Deep Learning Method. Applied Artificial Intelligence,2020.
Ren, S., K. He, R. Girshick, and J. Sun. 2017. Faster R-CNN: Towards real-time object
detection with region proposal networks. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis
and Machine Intelligence 39 (6):1137-49. doi:10.1109/TPAMI.2016.2577031.
Kupyn, O., Budzan, V., Mykhailych, M., Mishkin, D., and Matas, J. 2018. Deblurgan:
Blind motion deblurring using conditional adversarial networks. In Proceedings
of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 8183-
8192).
Bubbliiiing. Faster-Rcnn: Implementation of Two-Stage object detection model in
Tensorflow2. Accessed December 1, 2020. https://github.com/bubbliiiing/faster-
rcnn-tf2.
Diederik Kingma, and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization.
arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980.
Xiang Long, Kaipeng Deng, Guanzhong Wang, Yang Zhang, Qingqing Dang, Yuan
Gao, Hui Shen, Jianguo Ren, Shumin Han, Errui Ding, and Shilei Wen. 2020.
PP-YOLO: An Effective and Efficient Implementation of Object Detector. arXiv
preprint arXiv:2007.12099.
Mahmoudi, A., and Regragui, F. 2009. Fast segmentation method for defects detection
in radiographic images of welds. In 2009 IEEE/ACS International Conference
on Computer Systems and Applications (pp. 857-860). IEEE.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.Y., Y.C., and Z.Y.; Software, D.M., Resources, Z.Y., H.Y.;

Supervision, Y.C., Z.Y.; Writing—original draft, D.Y.; Writing—review and editing,

D.Y., Y.C., and Z.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the

manuscript.