Automatic Fabric Defect Detection Using Learning-Based Local Textural Distributions in the Contourlet Domain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose a learning-based approach for automatic detection of fabric defects. Our approach is based on a statistical representation of fabric patterns using the redundant contourlet transform (RCT). The distribution of the RCT coefficients are modeled using a finite mixture of generalized Gaussians (MoGG), which constitute statistical signatures distinguishing between defective and defect-free fabrics. In addition to being compact and fast to compute, these signatures enable accurate localization of defects. Our defect detection system is based on three main steps. In the first step, a preprocessing is applied for detecting basic pattern size for image decomposition and signature calculation. In the second step, labeled fabric samples are used to train a Bayes classifier (BC) to discriminate between defect-free and defective fabrics. Finally, defects are detected during image inspection by testing local patches using the learned BC. Our approach can deal with multiple types of textile fabrics, from simple to more complex ones. Experiments on the TILDA database have demonstrated that our method yields better results compared with recent state-of-the-art methods.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".