Cited by 22Industrial Vision Systems and Defect DetectionGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image SynthesisInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring

GAN-based Defect Synthesis for Anomaly Detection in Fabrics

Rippel, Oliver, Muller, Maximilian, Merhof, Dorit·2020·2020 25th IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA)

Abstract

Image-based quality control aims at detecting anomalies in products and is a crucial part of the production process. Challenges arise from the complexity and variety of products, defects, and the rarity of defect occurrence. Quality control thus still relies heavily on manual inspection. Supervised, data driven approaches have greatly improved performance, but suffer from a major drawback: They require large amounts of annotated training data, limiting their economic viability.In this work, we overcome this drawback by leveraging the consistency of defect appearance across fabrics to transfer knowledge about anomalies from one fabric to another. We realize this by adapting the image-to-image translation framework, introducing guidance by means of a segmentation map. We evaluate both image quality as well as usability of generated defects. For the image quality, both classical (L1, L2 and Structured Similarity Measurement (SSIM)) and perceptual (Learned Perceptual Image Patch Similarity (LPIPS)) metrics indicate efficacy of the presented approach, i.e. defect synthesis only occurs in the targeted regions, and the background fabric pattern remains largely unchanged. To evaluate usability of generated defects, we train pseudo-supervised models on synthesized defects of fabrics unseen during training. A comparison with semi-supervised, autoencoder based approaches demonstrates the suitability of our approach, yielding average Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUROC) values of 0.81 for pseudo-supervised vs. 0.69 for semi-supervised settings.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/etfa46521.2020.9212099

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rippel, O., Muller, M., & Merhof, D.
Affiliations
RWTH Aachen University (DE)
Venue
2020 25th IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2020-09
Pages
534-540
OpenAlex
W3092105412
Cited by
22
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2
FWCI
2.49
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA) (publishedVersion)
  • RWTH Publications (RWTH Aachen) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering › Industrial Vision Systems and Defect Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Generative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Infrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Keywords
anomaly detection, textiles, generative adversarial networks, image-to-image translation, domain adaptation, semi-supervised learning, image quality assessment, quality control

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