A Learning-Based Approach for Automatic Defect Detection in Textile Images
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses the textile defect detection problem using a machine-learning approach. We propose a novel algorithm that uses supervised learning to classify textile textures in defect and non-defect classes based on suitable feature extraction and classification. We use statistical modeling of multi-scale contourlet image decomposition to obtain compact and accurate signatures for texture description. Our defect detection algorithm is based on two phases. In the first phase, using a training set of images, we extract reference defect-free signatures for each textile category. Then, we use the Bayes classifier (BC) to learn signatures of defected and non-defected classes. In the second phase, defects are detected on new images using the trained BC and an appropriate decomposition of images into blocks. Our algorithm has the capability to achieve highly accurate defect detection and localisation in textile textures while ensuring an efficient computational time. Compared to recent state-of-the-art methods, our algorithm has yielded better results on the standard TILDA database.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it