Cited by 284Industrial Vision Systems and Defect DetectionNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring

Automatic Fabric Defect Detection with a Multi-Scale Convolutional Denoising Autoencoder Network Model

Open access
Mei, Shuang, Wang, Yudan, Wen, Guojun·2018·Sensors

Abstract

Fabric defect detection is a necessary and essential step of quality control in the textile manufacturing industry. Traditional fabric inspections are usually performed by manual visual methods, which are low in efficiency and poor in precision for long-term industrial applications. In this paper, we propose an unsupervised learning-based automated approach to detect and localize fabric defects without any manual intervention. This approach is used to reconstruct image patches with a convolutional denoising autoencoder network at multiple Gaussian pyramid levels and to synthesize detection results from the corresponding resolution channels. The reconstruction residual of each image patch is used as the indicator for direct pixel-wise prediction. By segmenting and synthesizing the reconstruction residual map at each resolution level, the final inspection result can be generated. This newly developed method has several prominent advantages for fabric defect detection. First, it can be trained with only a small amount of defect-free samples. This is especially important for situations in which collecting large amounts of defective samples is difficult and impracticable. Second, owing to the multi-modal integration strategy, it is relatively more robust and accurate compared to general inspection methods (the results at each resolution level can be viewed as a modality). Third, according to our results, it can address multiple types of textile fabrics, from simple to more complex. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed model is robust and yields good overall performance with high precision and acceptable recall rates.

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 · 10.3390/s18041064

Cites

37 of 37 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 performance of the detection software was measured based on detection rates from the confusion matrix, with ground truth determined by an inspection expert.

    “The performance of the proposed software was measured based on the detection rates from the confusion matrix, which is a commonly used evaluation method for defect detection applications [90]. The ground truth was determined by an inspection expert and formed the basis of comparison between the computed and actual detections.”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mei, S., Wang, Y., & Wen, G.
Affiliations
China University of Geosciences (CN)
Corresponding author
Wen, Guojun
Venue
Sensors
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2018-04-02
Volume
18
Issue
4
Pages
1064
ISSN
1424-8220 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2795647708
Cited by
284
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1
FWCI
24.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Sensors (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering › Industrial Vision Systems and Defect Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Non-Destructive Testing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Infrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Keywords
fabric defect detection, convolutional denoising autoencoder, unsupervised learning, textile quality control, defect localization, reconstruction residuals, multimodal integration

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