Anomaly detection in automated fibre placement: learning with data limitations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Conventional defect detection systems in Automated Fibre Placement (AFP) typically rely on end-to-end supervised learning, necessitating a substantial number of labelled defective samples for effective training. However, the scarcity of such labelled data poses a challenge. Methods: To overcome this limitation, we present a comprehensive framework for defect detection and localization in Automated Fibre Placement. Our approach combines unsupervised deep learning and classical computer vision algorithms, eliminating the need for labelled data or manufacturing defect samples. It efficiently detects various surface issues while requiring fewer images of composite parts for training. Our framework employs an innovative sample extraction method leveraging AFP’s inherent symmetry to expand the dataset. By inputting a depth map of the fibre layup surface, we extract local samples aligned with each composite strip (tow). Results: These samples are processed through an autoencoder, trained on normal samples for precise reconstructions, highlighting anomalies through reconstruction errors. Aggregated values form an anomaly map for insightful visualization. The framework employs blob detection on this map to locate manufacturing defects. Discussion: The experimental findings reveal that despite training the autoencoder with a limited number of images, our proposed method exhibits satisfactory detection accuracy and accurately identifies defect locations. Our framework demonstrates comparable performance to existing methods, while also offering the advantage of detecting all types of anomalies without relying on an extensive labelled dataset of defects.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".