Cross-object transfer learning improves surface defect detection in lithium batteries, indicating better performance with fewer samples.
Lithium batteries are one class of key components in new‐energy vehicles, and surface defects are easily generated during production, causing serious threats to safety. Most deep learning methods of surface defect detection heavily rely on lots of high‐quality labeled samples. Unfortunately, it is very difficult and expensive to prepare defect datasets of lithium batteries in practice. To deal with this issue, this paper presents cross‐object transfer learning (COTL)–based few‐shot surface defect detection of lithium batteries by resort to massive defect samples of other objects. The COTL model is composed of image preprocessing, feature extraction, feature fusion, and contrastive learning‐based defect detection modules. The ResNeXt‐101 network is used as the backbone to enhance feature extraction capability. The path aggregation feature pyramid network (PAFPN) is used to realize multiscale feature fusion. The contrastive learning branch is added to improve the discrimination ability among different categories of region proposals under few defect samples and increase the generalization ability. Then, experiments are done to testify the proposed method, where base‐class defect dataset from other objects and new‐class defect dataset from soft‐pack lithium batteries are adopted for training and testing. Furthermore, model comparison and ablation studies are performed. The results show that the recall rate, the AP50, the mAP, and the F1 values of the COTL model are much better than those of other existing models when only using few defect samples. In particular, when there are only 30 new‐class defect samples, the above four metrics of the COTL model are already larger than 0.90. The results testify that the proposed COTL model provides a more effective solution for few‐shot surface defect detection of lithium batteries.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: