Similarity Measures for Automatic Defect Detection on Patterned Textures
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
Similarity measures are widely used in various applications such as information retrieval, image and object recognition, text retrieval, and web data search. In this paper, we propose similarity-based methods for defect detection on patterned textures using five different similarity measures, viz., Normalized Histogram Intersection Coefficient, Bhattacharyya Coefficient, Pearson Product-moment Correlation Coefficient, Jaccard Coefficient and Cosine-angle Coefficient. Periodic blocks are extracted from each input defective image and similarity matrix is obtained based on the similarity coefficient of histogram of each periodic block with respect to itself and other all periodic blocks. Each similarity matrix is transformed into dissimilarity matrix containing true-distance metrics and Ward’s hierarchical clustering is performed to discern between defective and defect-free blocks. Performance of the proposed method is evaluated for each similarity measure based on precision, recall and accuracy for various real fabric images with defects such as broken end, hole, thin bar, thick bar, netting multiple, knot, and missing pick.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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