MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3119306060 · doi:10.47893/ijipvs.2012.1004

Similarity Measures for Automatic Defect Detection on Patterned Textures

2012· article· en· W3119306060 on OpenAlexaff
V Asha, P. Nagabhushan, Nagappa U. Bhajantri

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Image Processing and Vision Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndustrial Vision Systems and Defect Detection
Canadian institutionsHorizon College and Seminary
FundersUniversity of Hong Kong
KeywordsJaccard indexSimilarity (geometry)Bhattacharyya distancePattern recognition (psychology)HistogramArtificial intelligencePearson product-moment correlation coefficientCorrelation coefficientMathematicsComputer scienceSimilarity measureEuclidean distanceImage (mathematics)Statistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.325 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Image Processing and Vision ScienceSame topicIndustrial Vision Systems and Defect DetectionFrench-language works237,207