mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Low Cost Two-Stage Fabric Defect Detection at the Edge

arXiv 2608.14727 ↗First posted 12 Aug 2026cs.CVcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Fabric inspection in the garment industries of low-income economies remains largely manual, and commercial vision systems are priced beyond most small and medium mills. Because defects are sparse under controlled production, a natural response is a cascade: screen every frame with a cheap anomaly detector and invoke a full detector only on suspicious frames. We build such a cascade for four knit-fabric defect classes and deploy it end-to-end on an NVIDIA Jetson Nano with TensorRT FP16. Stage 1 is a compact convolutional autoencoder with decoder attention gates, an edge-weighted reconstruction loss, and feature-level distillation from a frozen YOLOv5n teacher; Stage 2 is YOLOv5n, invoked only on flagged frames. On a 249-image benchmark disjoint from detector training (20 defective, 229 non-defective), Stage 1 at a recall-prioritised threshold flags all 20 defective images (95% CI 0.83-1.00) at a false-positive rate of 49.3% (113/229), reducing false positives by 19.3% relative to a plain autoencoder (p=0.011). The parallel pipeline reaches 13.45 FPS against 9.86 FPS for a sequential YOLO-only loop. Our central finding comes from decomposing that 1.36x: 91% of it is attributable to overlapping JPEG decode with inference rather than to the cascade, which contributes only a 5.1% inference reduction at the measured forwarding rate p = 0.534. We further show that forwarding here is false-positive-limited rather than prevalence-limited - 85% of forwarded frames are false alarms - and quantify the 29-45% inference reduction attainable under tighter calibration. We report this as a caution for cascade speedups measured without controlling the data path, and position the system as AI-assisted triage rather than autonomous acceptance.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 10 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Aug 2026.

Builds on

10 of 36 references.

References · 10

  1. 2015Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Networkcited by 10,324
  2. 2021Towards Total Recall in Industrial Anomaly Detectioncited by 776
  3. 2020PaDiM: a Patch Distribution Modeling Framework for Anomaly Detection and Localizationcited by 594
  4. 2020A Unifying Review of Deep and Shallow Anomaly Detectioncited by 425
  5. 2022Anomaly Detection via Reverse Distillation from One-Class Embeddingcited by 421
  6. 2020Multiresolution Knowledge Distillation for Anomaly Detectioncited by 285
  7. 2018Improving Unsupervised Defect Segmentation by Applying Structural Similarity to Autoencoderscited by 264
  8. 2023SimpleNet: A Simple Network for Image Anomaly Detection and Localizationcited by 256
  9. 2021FastFlow: Unsupervised Anomaly Detection and Localization via 2D Normalizing Flowscited by 227
  10. 2023EfficientAD: Accurate Visual Anomaly Detection at Millisecond-Level Latenciescited by 160

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2024Distillation-based fabric anomaly detection
  2. 2025From Lab to Factory: Pitfalls and Guidelines for Self-/Unsupervised Defect Detection on Low-Quality Industrial Images
  3. 2025RcAE: Recursive Reconstruction Framework for Unsupervised Industrial Anomaly Detection
  4. 2026SubspaceAD: Training-Free Few-Shot Anomaly Detection via Subspace Modeling
  5. 2023TransFusion -- A Transparency-Based Diffusion Model for Anomaly Detection
  6. 2025Patch-aware Vector Quantized Codebook Learning for Unsupervised Visual Defect Detection
  7. 2024Leveraging Latent Diffusion Models for Training-Free In-Distribution Data Augmentation for Surface Defect Detection
  8. 2024DefFiller: Mask-Conditioned Diffusion for Salient Steel Surface Defect Generation