Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Experimental study demonstrates 84% identification accuracy using synthetic training data in foundry optical scanning, indicating viable automation without manual image labelling.
In industrial applications, AI-based methods are gaining increasing significance in optical systems for tasks such as identification, inspection, and classification. The appeal of these methods lies in their operator-friendly implementation and often superior performance, particularly in complex classification tasks. However, despite the substantial potential of AI-based methods, their application is frequently constrained by the significant resources needed to acquire an appropriate training dataset. For instance, in the sand casting industry, the complexity of optical inspection for cast parts is compounded by considerable variation in local surface topography and global object geometry. This challenge pertains not only to the volume of images required but also to the extensive process of accurate labelling. In this work, we investigate the effectiveness and limitations of synthetic training data for an AI-based optical code reader, designed for the identification and tracking of cast parts. This scanner is capable of detecting and classifying a unique code, called Cast Code, developed specifically for the casting industry, enabling the identification of individual cast part numbers. For synthetic image generation, we utilize physically based rendering, which allows comprehensive control over all rendering parameters. This approach facilitates both a systematic investigation of parameter relevance and an automated labelling process for the training datasets. Our results indicate that detailed geometric modelling of both, the local surface topography and the global object geometry of the pins has a notable positive impact on the neural network’s recognition accuracy, achieving accuracy rates of up to 84 %, on real pin images, using synthetic training datasets, only.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zender et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: