Author Affiliations
1College of Mechatronics and Control Engineering, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 510086, Guangdong, China2Shenzhen Institute of Technology, Shenzhen 518116, Guangdong, Chinashow less
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of polarizer imaging experiment system
Fig. 2. Structured light imaging enhancement effect (left, uniform light; right, structured light)
Fig. 3. Overall framework of proposed model
Fig. 4. Anti anomaly detection network model based on encoding and decoding structure
Fig. 5. Anomaly detection process based on synthetic defects
Fig. 6. Real defect examples. (a) Point defect; (b) foreign matter; (c) bubbles; (d) crease
Fig. 7. Examples of composite defects
Fig. 8. Hyperparametric selection diagram of model loss weight
Fig. 9. Relationship between number of training samples and model accuracy
Fig. 10. Comparison of reconstruction results of some normal samples
Fig. 11. Comparison of reconstruction effect of defect samples
Fig. 12. Abnormal score graph of 100 normal samples and 100 defective samples
Fig. 13. Precision-recall curve of various methods
Fig. 14. Interference dataset images
Frequency(fringe spacing) | Width ratio of black and white stripes | Brightness | Saturation | Rotation | Edge distortion | Noise impact |
---|
1/2π-1/π | 0.2-5 | 50-200 | 0-0.9 | 0-π | 0.1-5 | Gaussian exponent | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
Table 1. Normal samples under different characteristics
Method | AUC | Average time of single image detection /ms |
---|
AnoGAN | 0.718 | 7320 | VQ-VAE[26] | 0.883 | 25.1 | GANomaly | 0.792 | 52.2 | Skip-GANomaly | 0.686 | 37.4 | Skip-GANomaly(+proposed Llat) | 0.734 | 39.8 | Proposed method without proposed Llat | 0.916 | 19.4 | Proposed method | 0.979 | 19.2 |
|
Table 2. Effect comparison of different methods
Method | AUC of original test data | AUC of interference data | Decrease /% |
---|
AnoGAN | 0.718 | 0.627 | 12.7 | VQ-VAE | 0.883 | 0.746 | 15.5 | GANomaly | 0.792 | 0.658 | 16.9 | Skip-GANomaly | 0.686 | 0.45 | 34.4 | Skip-GANomaly(+proposed Llat) | 0.734 | 0.641 | 12.7 | Proposed method without proposed Llat | 0.916 | 0.818 | 10.7 | Proposed method | 0.979 | 0.933 | 4.7 |
|
Table 3. AUC difference between different methods and original data under interference data