MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386742638 · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.24123501

An Autoencoder with Convolutional Neural Network for Surface Defect Detection on Cast Components

2023· preprint· en· W4386742638 on OpenAlexafffund
Olivia Chamberland, Mark Reckzin, Hashim A. Hashim

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndustrial Vision Systems and Defect Detection
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAutoencoderConvolutional neural networkRetrainingArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceConvolution (computer science)Pattern recognition (psychology)Cluster analysisIdentification (biology)Artificial neural networkAutomationProduction (economics)Image (mathematics)Deep learningMachine learningEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>There is unrealized potential in using automation to alleviate the visual inspection associated with non-destructive testing in manufacturing facilities. The identification of defects during the production can help avoid substantial manufacturing errors by indicating that preventative maintenance should be introduced. The use of an autoencoder for this application reduces the need to generate datasets for various defect types, instead only one training dataset would be needed. To address this, this paper proposes a Convolution Neural Network (CNN) autoencoder approach to detect surface defects on cast components during the production. The proposed method categorizes the data into damaged and undamaged components by clustering based on the loss associated with the reconstructed image. The average F1-score and accuracy from retraining the model 10 times was 89.14% and 88.52% respectively. Although previous studies have obtained higher metrics, they have focused their efforts on supervised training techniques where as this research proposes an unsupervised training method with results comparable to the previous studies.</p>

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.293
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIndustrial Vision Systems and Defect DetectionFrench-language works237,207