Page 53 - Read Online
P. 53

Hu et al. J. Mater. Inf. 2025, 5, 44  https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/jmi.2025.21    Page 3 of 17

               learning has proven effective in addressing metal defect detection challenges in datasets with limited
                      [33]
               labeling . Self-supervised pre-training models are typically built on contrastive learning frameworks [34,35] ,
               which train models to differentiate data samples by comparing similarities and differences between data
                                                                           [36]
               points. Representative methods include momentum contrast (MOCO) , simple framework for contrastive
               learning  of  visual  representations  (SimCLR) , and  simple  Siamese  network  (SimSiam) . MOCO
                                                        [37]
                                                                                                [38]
               optimizes contrastive learning by dynamically managing a large number of negative samples using a
               dictionary queue, though its complex architecture demands significant computational resources. SimCLR
               enhances performance through large batch sizes and advanced data augmentation techniques to generate
               negative sample pairs but similarly requires substantial computational resources and carefully designed
               augmentation strategies. In contrast, SimSiam stands out for its simplicity and efficiency. It eliminates the
               need for negative samples or momentum encoders and prevents feature collapse via stop-gradient
               operations and symmetric predictor designs, resulting in a streamlined architecture that is easier to
               implement and scale. SimSiam has achieved state-of-the-art performance across multiple benchmark
               datasets.

               In this study, we introduce a streamlined self-supervised defect detection framework and devise a weight
               transfer scheme to pre-train the comparative learning SimSiam model on a comprehensive dataset of
               unlabeled images to learn their inherent features. Subsequently, we employ the learned weights of the model
               to serve as a feature extractor within Faster R-CNN for application on a constrained dataset of labeled steel
               surface defect images to evaluate detection performance. This study examines the factors influencing
               detection accuracy and confirms the efficacy of self-supervised learning approaches in steel surface defect
               detection. The principal contributions of this paper are as follows:


               (1) This paper introduces a novel self-supervised learning approach specifically tailored for steel surface
               defect detection. It utilizes unlabeled data to train a model capable of generalizing effectively to various
               types of defects with a high degree of accuracy. The approach markedly diminishes dependence on manual
               labeling, which is labor-intensive and costly, and offers a scalable solution for microstructural image
               classification and localization in surface defect identification.

               (2) We propose a streamlined self-supervised learning framework for steel surface defect detection that
               reduces model complexity, enhances interpretability and reliability, negates the need for extensive labeled
               data, and abbreviates detection time.

               (3) Extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach achieves superior results compared to a baseline
               model using random weights and ImageNet pre-trained ResNet18 weights on the publicly available
               downstream defect dataset NEU-DET. Our study underscores the viability of self-supervised methods in
               this domain and lays the groundwork for more advanced defect detection techniques.


               The subsequent sections of this paper are organized as follows: The “Methodology” section details the
               proposed methodology, including a comprehensive description of dataset creation and the self-supervised
               learning framework. The “Results” section delineates the experimental results and analysis. The
               “Discussion” section discusses the limitations of the study and proposes future research directions. Finally,
               the “Conclusions” section encapsulates the findings of the paper.
   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58