MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Automating Visual Inspection with Convolutional Neural Networks

2019· article· en· W2976519442 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Conference of the PHM Society · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndustrial Vision Systems and Defect Detection
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Context (archaeology)SegmentationObject detectionDeep learningComputer visionTask (project management)Set (abstract data type)Convolution (computer science)Contextual image classificationImage (mathematics)Artificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) have become the recent tool of choice for many visual detection tasks, including object classification, localization, detection, and segmentation. CNNs are specialized neural networks composed of many layers and specifically designed to analyze grid-like data, e.g. images. One of the key features of a CNN is its ability to automatically detect important features within an image (e.g. edges, patterns, shapes); prior to CNNs, these features had to be manually engineered by subject matter experts.
 Inspired by the significant achievements and success that CNNs have experienced in the domain of computer vision, we examine a specific convolutional neural network (CNN) architecture, U-Net, suited for the task of visual defect detection. We identify and discuss situations for the use of this architecture in the specific context of external defect detection on aircraft and experimentally discuss its performance across a dataset of common visual defects.
 One requirement of training Convolution Networks on an image analysis task is the need for a large image (training) data set. We address this problem by using synthetically generated images from computer models of jets with varying angles and perspectives with and without induced faults in the generated images. This paper presents the initial results of using CNNs, specifically U-Net, to detect aerial vehicle surface defects of three categories. We further demonstrate that CNNs trained on synthetic images can then be used to detect faults in real images of jets with visual damages. The results obtained in this research, indicate that our approach has been quite effective in detecting surface anomalies in our tests.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.287

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it