• Laser & Optoelectronics Progress
  • Vol. 57, Issue 4, 041515 (2020)
Dongjie Li* and Ruohao Li
Author Affiliations
  • School of Automation, Harbin University of Science and Technology, Harbin, Heilongjiang 150080, China
  • show less
    DOI: 10.3788/LOP57.041515 Cite this Article Set citation alerts
    Dongjie Li, Ruohao Li. Mug Defect Detection Method Based on Improved Faster RCNN[J]. Laser & Optoelectronics Progress, 2020, 57(4): 041515 Copy Citation Text show less
    FPN+RPN algorithm network structure diagram
    Fig. 1. FPN+RPN algorithm network structure diagram
    Partial training samples. (a) With four defects, one gap, one scratch, and two speckles; (b) with one speckle defect; (c) with two gap defects
    Fig. 2. Partial training samples. (a) With four defects, one gap, one scratch, and two speckles; (b) with one speckle defect; (c) with two gap defects
    Partial test samples. (a) With one gap defect; (b) with two defects, one gap and one speckle; (c) with one scratch defect
    Fig. 3. Partial test samples. (a) With one gap defect; (b) with two defects, one gap and one speckle; (c) with one scratch defect
    Training loss based on ZF network. (a) Stage-1 training loss of RPN; (b) stage-1 training loss of Faster RCNN; (c) stage-2 training loss of RPN; (d) stage-2 training loss of Faster RCNN
    Fig. 4. Training loss based on ZF network. (a) Stage-1 training loss of RPN; (b) stage-1 training loss of Faster RCNN; (c) stage-2 training loss of RPN; (d) stage-2 training loss of Faster RCNN
    Training loss based on improved ZF network. (a) Stage-1 training loss of RPN; (b) stage-1 training loss of Faster RCNN; (c) stage-2 training loss of RPN; (d) stage-2 training loss of Faster RCNN
    Fig. 5. Training loss based on improved ZF network. (a) Stage-1 training loss of RPN; (b) stage-1 training loss of Faster RCNN; (c) stage-2 training loss of RPN; (d) stage-2 training loss of Faster RCNN
    Labeling data set with labelImg
    Fig. 6. Labeling data set with labelImg
    Comparison of mug defect inspection results. (a) Original Faster RCNN; (b) Faster RCNN after FPN addition
    Fig. 7. Comparison of mug defect inspection results. (a) Original Faster RCNN; (b) Faster RCNN after FPN addition
    Type of layersNumber of convolution kernelsStep size
    BeforeAfterBeforeAfterBeforeAfter
    Conv_1/1Conv_1/296647×7/23×3/1
    Max pooling/1Max pooling/196643×3/22×2/2
    Conv_2/1Conv_2/22561285×5/23×3/1
    Max pooling/1Max pooling/12561283×3/22×2/2
    Conv_3/3Conv_3/2384/384/2562563×3/13×3/1
    Max pooling/1Max pooling/12562563×3/22×2/2
    Conv_4/33843×3/1
    Max pooling/13842×2/2
    Conv_5/35123×3/1
    Table 1. ZF network structure before and after improvement
    Network structureAP /%Average detectiontime /s
    ScratchSpeckleGap
    Faster RCNN85.32097.030.094
    Faster RCNN and two layers of FPN87.8681.1198.300.123
    Faster RCNN and three layers of FPN88.3282.3698.510.135
    Faster RCNN and four layers of FPN88.5682.9898.760.149
    Table 2. Comparison of various network structures on classification performance
    Dongjie Li, Ruohao Li. Mug Defect Detection Method Based on Improved Faster RCNN[J]. Laser & Optoelectronics Progress, 2020, 57(4): 041515
    Download Citation