MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321613578 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2586790/v1

Artificial Intelligence for Product Quality Inspection in Manufacturing Industry - Online Detection of Edge Defects on Inorganic Solid Material

2023· preprint· en· W4321613578 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

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndustrial Vision Systems and Defect Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceProcess (computing)Quality (philosophy)Object detectionDomain (mathematical analysis)Artificial intelligenceProduct (mathematics)Machine visionEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionField (mathematics)Set (abstract data type)Industrial engineeringMachine learningEngineeringPattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The detection and localization of small and tiny defects on high-resolution images is considered one of the main challenges in the field of computer vision. In the manufacturing industry, the production speed and cycle time are considered the major target of a production process. For such reason, automated quality detection is getting even more complexified by the need of performing defect detection on moving products. In this work, we investigate the performance of a small defect detection process on high-scale images by utilizing state-of-the-art object detection architectures and a set of the hardware setup. Taking as a target the detection of defects on moving products, and using a small training set and a procedure of data augmentation, we demonstrated that such a challenge can be solved using machine learning and artificial intelligence coupled with domain knowledge in machine vision hardware selection and design. The sections of this paper are organized into two parts, the first part describes the problem, the existing and related works, and a summary of the existing methodologies. The second part of the paper is centered on our case study for which we started by describing the adopted methodology, the vision system design, the data acquisition and processing, the model training, and the obtained results, then it is concluded with a discussion of the model outputs and the listing of challenges that still to be studied in future works.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.440
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.213
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.218 · 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