.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Return
Active Verification for Missing-Annotation-Aware Tiny Surface Defect Detection in Resistors
.png){kind=icon}
OA
AI
DOI：10.3390/s26123912.png)
.png){kind=icon}
Original request for help.png){kind=icon}
Share.png){kind=icon}
Save
Abstract
En 中文
In the resistor images used in this study, many defective regions are weak coating-like marks rather than obvious scratches or pits. Their appearance is close to the epoxy background, and some visible defects were missing from the original annotation files. If these labels are used directly, the detector treats the missed defects as background samples during training. We therefore corrected the supervision before changing the feature constraint. An early YOLO26s model was first used to nominate low-overlap boxes, and these candidates were then checked manually. Only confirmed defects were merged into the labels. After this step, a scale-gated prototype consistency term was added during training to reduce the model’s bias toward the dominant tiny-defect group. On the fixed corrected benchmark, mAP50 improved from 28.14% to 63.20%, and Recall increased from 18.42% to 62.20%. In the end-to-end deployment view, where the raw and cleaned validation sets answer different practical questions, mAP50 changed from 43.66% to 63.15%, and Recall changed from 30.01% to 62.24%. For normal-size defects, Recall increased from 26.09% to 56.52%. A prototype-only transfer study on the public MVTec AD benchmark further evaluates whether the feature constraint generalizes when the label-repair stage is not applicable to clean public annotations. Since the prototype term is removed after training, the deployed detector remains the original YOLO26s model without an additional inference branch.
Keywords:
resistor surface inspection
missing annotation
active verification
label repair
prototype consistency
tiny defect detection
Journal
IF:
3.5
Papers:
7.1W
Citations:
20.9W
Organization
View more organizations