Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38276341›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Synthetic Training Data in AI-Driven Quality Inspection: The Significance of Camera, Lighting, and Noise Parameters.

Dominik Schraml, Gunther Notni

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Dominik SchramlGroup for Quality Assurance and Industrial Image Processing, Ilmenau University of Technology, 98639 Ilmenau, Germany.ORCID 0009-0002-4728-404X
Gunther NotniGroup for Quality Assurance and Industrial Image Processing, Ilmenau University of Technology, 98639 Ilmenau, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7532-1560

Funding

Federal Ministry of Education and Research 01IS22019
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Industrial-quality inspections, particularly those leveraging AI, require significant amounts of training data. In fields like injection molding, producing a multitude of defective parts for such data poses environmental and financial challenges. Synthetic training data emerge as a potential solution to address these concerns. Although the creation of realistic synthetic 2D images from 3D models of injection-molded parts involves numerous rendering parameters, the current literature on the generation and application of synthetic data in industrial-quality inspection scarcely addresses the impact of these parameters on AI efficacy. In this study, we delve into some of these key parameters, such as camera position, lighting, and computational noise, to gauge their effect on AI performance. By utilizing Blender software, we procedurally introduced the "flash" defect on a 3D model sourced from a CAD file of an injection-molded part. Subsequently, with Blender's Cycles rendering engine, we produced datasets for each parameter variation. These datasets were then used to train a pre-trained EfficientNet-V2 for the binary classification of the "flash" defect. Our results indicate that while noise is less critical, using a range of noise levels in training can benefit model adaptability and efficiency. Variability in camera positioning and lighting conditions was found to be more significant, enhancing model performance even when real-world conditions mirror the controlled synthetic environment. These findings suggest that incorporating diverse lighting and camera dynamics is beneficial for AI applications, regardless of the consistency in real-world operational settings.

Indexed as

AI inspectionblenderdefect detectionquality controlrendering parametersynthetic data

Identifiers

PMID38276341
PMCPMC10820774

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.