186 / README.md
Y-xvan's picture
186: Magnetic-Tile-Defect -> T-B2 (unified SFT; viewer-friendly row groups)
2117f8e verified
|
Raw
History Blame Contribute Delete
3.8 kB
metadata
tags:
  - smart-manufacturing
  - sft
  - industrial
  - vision
license: other
pretty_name: '186'
extra_gated_fields:
  Name: text
  Affiliation: text
  Intended use: text
extra_gated_prompt: >-
  This dataset is released for **research use**. Access is reviewed and granted
  **manually** by the maintainers. Please state your name, affiliation, and
  intended use.

186

Magnetic-tile defect classification (5 defects + good; saliency mask GT). Category B, task T-B2, in the unified Smart-Manufacturing SFT schema.

The repository name is an internal task code. See Provenance below for the underlying dataset.

Records

1,344 records (train=1344). Pixel masks are embedded as a mask image column.

Unified SFT schema

field type meaning
query str the question / instruction (model input)
image Image the input image (bytes embedded)
annot str the answer — for this dataset: plain-text {label, defect_type}{good, null} or {anomalous, <defect>} (one of Blowhole/Break/Crack/Fray/Uneven). The paper's task is pixel saliency segmentation; that mask is deferred GT in the mask column, with segmentation info (mask_path, defect_area_fraction) in metadata — see Task, mask & split below
reasoning null no native CoT in these datasets
cate "B" SFT category
task "T-xx" unified task id
metadata str (JSON) split, provenance, image_path, image_sha256 (dedup key)
mask Image | null (T-B1/T-B2 only) the pixel ground-truth mask, bytes embedded
masks list[Image] (D21 only) multi-region masks

Task, mask & split

What this is. Magnetic-Tile-Defect (Huang et al., "Surface defect saliency of magnetic tile", The Visual Computer 2020) — 1,344 grayscale magnetic-tile images across 6 subsets: 5 defect types (Blowhole, Break, Crack, Fray, Uneven) + MT_Free (defect-free / good). Each image ships a paired pixel-level ground-truth mask.

The paper's own task is saliency SEGMENTATION (segmenting the defect region); the pixel masks are that ground truth. This release instead frames the image-level task as defect classification (the dataset is organized by defect class): query (our template) asks whether the tile is good or anomalous and, if anomalous, to name the defect type from the 5 classes; annot is {label, defect_type} ({good, null} / {anomalous, <defect>}). The query does not ask for a mask.

Segmentation (the paper's task — kept as deferred GT). The pixel saliency mask is kept in the mask column as localization ground truth (anomalous images only; good images have mask=null). Per-image segmentation info is in metadata: mask_path (source mask) and defect_area_fraction (fraction of pixels labelled defect; 0 for good). A text-output model cannot emit a pixel mask, so segmentation is deferred.

Split. No upstream train/val/test split -> single train. Class counts: Free (good) 952, Blowhole 115, Uneven 103, Break 85, Crack 57, Fray 32 (total 1,344).

License. No formal license in the source; released for research use — please cite Huang et al. 2020.

Provenance

Underlying dataset: Magnetic-Tile-Defect. Upstream license: other (research use; cite Huang et al. 2020) (this card is license: other; respect the upstream terms). Converted read-only from the raw source into the unified schema; conversion script: 186/convert_d86.py, published with publish/push_to_hf.py, both in AI4Manufacturing/forge_model.

Overlap / de-duplication (§8)

None notable. Each record carries metadata.image_sha256 so overlapping images can be kept entirely on one side of a train/eval split.