MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7038766309

Investigating the Performance of a Vision Transformer Model for Anomaly Detection in Laser Metal Deposition Imaging

2024· article· en· W7038766309 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueKTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkTransformerArchitectureReliability (semiconductor)Process (computing)Ground truthPattern recognition (psychology)Anomaly detection
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Laser metal deposition (LMD) is recognized as a critical technique in Additive Manufacturing (AM) that allows the production and repair of components in a high-quality, efficient, and cost-effective manner. However, defects may still arise in the deposited components. While conventional architectures like Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) have shown satisfactory results in detecting these defects using images captured during the process, transformer-based models remain relatively underexplored in this context. This study focused on designing a transformer-based architecture that could achieve high accuracy in identifying anomalies through melt pool images obtained during the wirefed LMD process. Upon its development, it was used to crossreference the predictions of an existing powerful CNN approach to ensure the reliability of its outcomes. Initially, the algorithm was trained using a custom Vision Transformer-decoder architecture with no labels involved, resulting in an accuracy of 92.66%. By utilizing the captured information from the classification token, its ability to identify anomalies was significantly improved, achieving 99.78% in a 900-image dataset. However, when evaluated on 6,497 unseen frames from the process with ground truth predictions generated by the CNN model, ViT’s accuracy decreased to 97.83%, a result attributed to the specific training method and the variability in the test set. Despite this reduction, the results were considered satisfactory, given the relatively new application of transformers on images, which has not been extensively explored in the field of anomaly detection. Overall, this research offers a comprehensive explanation of the proposed model architecture and outlines the necessary modifications required to achieve near-perfect performance on a transformer-based architecture, paving the way for future enhancements in anomaly detection.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology)Same topicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and ProcessesFrench-language works237,207