MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224937141 · doi:10.1109/crv55824.2022.00036

CellDefectNet: A Machine-designed Attention Condenser Network for Electroluminescence-based Photovoltaic Cell Defect Inspection

2022· article· en· W4224937141 on OpenAlexaff
Carol Xu, Mahmoud Famouri, Gautam Bathla, Saeejith Nair, Mohammad Javad Shafiee, Alexander Wong

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicPhotovoltaic System Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotovoltaic systemComputer scienceBenchmark (surveying)Artificial intelligenceElectroluminescenceSolar cellElectricityProcess (computing)Computer hardwareEmbedded systemElectrical engineeringEngineeringMaterials scienceNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Photovoltaic cells are electronic devices that convert light energy to electricity, forming the backbone of solar energy harvesting systems. An essential step in the manufacturing process for photovoltaic cells is visual quality inspection using electroluminescence imaging to identify defects such as cracks, finger interruptions, and broken cells. A big challenge faced by industry in photovoltaic cell visual inspection is the fact that it is currently done manually by human inspectors, which is extremely time consuming, laborious, and prone to human error. While deep learning approaches holds great potential to automating this inspection, the hardware resource-constrained manufac-turing scenario makes it challenging for deploying complex deep neural network architectures. In this work, we introduce CellDefectNet, a highly efficient attention condenser network designed via machine-driven design exploration specifically for electroluminesence-based photovoltaic cell defect detection on the edge. We demonstrate the efficacy of CellDetectNet on a benchmark dataset comprising of a diversity of photovoltaic cells captured using electroluminescence imagery, achieving an accuracy of <tex>$\sim 86.3\%$</tex> while possessing just 410K parameters <tex>$(\sim 13\times$</tex> lower than EfficientNet-B0, respectively) and <tex>$\sim 115\mathrm{M}$</tex> FLOPs <tex>$(\sim 12\times$</tex> lower than EfficientNet-B0) and <tex>$\sim 13\times$</tex> faster on an ARM Cortex A-72 embedded processor when compared to EfficientNet-B0.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhotovoltaic System Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207