Cited by 43Industrial Vision Systems and Defect DetectionImage and Video Quality AssessmentInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring

Image data assessment approach for deep learning-based metal surface defect-detection systems

Open access
Lin, Hsien-I., Wibowo, Fauzy Satrio·2021·IEEE Access

Abstract

The current trend in automated optical inspection (AOI) systems employs deep learning models to detect defects on a metal surface. The setback of deep learning models is that they are time-consuming because the images obtained after every lighting adjustment must be used to train the deep learning models again and confirm whether the detection results have improved. To save the time spent using datasets to train deep networks, we proposed a comprehensive assessment score that combines defect visibility, visibility distribution, and overexposure based on the operation principles of convolution neural networks. It can be used to assess whether the training image dataset can improve the defect detection rate of the deep learning model such as You Only Look Once (YOLO), Single Shot MultiBox Detector (SSD), and Faster Region-based Convolutional Neural Network (Faster R-CNN) without training defect image datasets. We collected all of the weight combinations with the right prediction results and used linear regression to obtain the optimal weight coefficients. We found that visibility and overexposure had a greater impact on the comprehensive assessment score. We compared the proposed approach with existing image quality assessment methods, including mean absolute error (MAE), peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR), universal image quality index (UIQI), natural image quality evaluator (NIQE), perception-based quality evaluator (PIQE), and blind/referenceless image spatial quality evaluator (BRISQUE). The experiment results indicated that our proposed comprehensive assessment score is more correlated to the F2-score of the detection models than the IQA methods by the verification methods of Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient (SRCC), Pearson Correlation, and Kendall Correlation. Thus, referring to this index during the collection of image data and choosing datasets with the highest score to train the model will produce better detection accuracy.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/access.2021.3068256

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The LED light source is the most widely used in the field of steel defect recognition.

    “Among them, the LED light source is the most widely used in the field of steel defect recognition [40][41][42].”

    From Steel Surface Defect Recognition: A Survey (2022) · cites this paper as [42]

    The Lighting Configurations section says the study used two blue LED lights to image defects on metal samples. It does not say LED is the most widely used light source in steel defect recognition; the paper’s experiment concerns anodized aluminum casings, not steel (Experiment section). Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 51 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Mech., Syst. Control Eng. (ICMSC), May 2017, pp. 101-105.
  2. J. Intell. Technol. Appl. Statist., vol. 11, pp. 105-111, Jun. 2018.
  3. HSIEN-I. LIN (Member, IEEE) received the Ph.D. degree in robotics from Purdue Uni- versity, West Lafayette, IN, USA. He is cur- rently a Professor with the Graduate Institute of Automation, National Taipei University of Tech- nology, Taipei, Taiwan, where he researches the human-robot interaction and machine learning. For his research contributions, he was awarded the Young Researcher Award from the National Taipei University of Technology, in 2015, the Young Robotics Researcher Award from the Robotics Society of Taiwan, in 2016, the Young Control Researcher Award from the Chinese Automatic Control Society, in 2017, and the Ta-You Wu Memorial Award from the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, in 2017.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lin, H.-I., & Wibowo, F. S.
Affiliations
National Taipei University of Technology (TW)
Venue
IEEE Access
Published
2021
Volume
9
Pages
47621-47638
ISSN
2169-3536 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3136431771
Cited by
43
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 3
FWCI
3.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Access (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST 108-2221-E-027-115-MY3)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering › Industrial Vision Systems and Defect Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image and Video Quality Assessment
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Infrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Keywords
metal surface defect detection, image quality assessment, automated optical inspection, overexposure, training data selection, image data collection, detection accuracy, YOLO, Faster R-CNN, SSD

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review