MGDefect: A Mask-Guided High-Quality Defect Image Generation Method for Improving Defect Inspection

Deep learning based defect inspection methods have achieved promising performance, which usually relies on a large number of well-labeled training samples. However, it requires much effort to obtain enough annotated samples especially pixel-level annotations in practical production. Generative adversarial networks (GANs) can be utilized to generate defect samples. However, training GANs typically requires a large amount of defect data and most of them cannot generate defect samples with pixel-level annotations. In this paper, we present a Mask-Guided Defect image generation method, called MGDefect, which can generate high-quality defect samples with pixel-level annotations and effectively improves the performance of downstream tasks. Specifically, MGDefect consists of a Mask-Guided Defect Generation GAN (MGDG-GAN) and a Defect Mask GAN (DM-GAN). MGDG-GAN generates images containing defects with specific locations, shapes, and sizes via mask guidance and the dual discrimination for defects at the region level and image level. DM-GAN aims to generate diverse and rational masks for MGDG-GAN. It also adopts region-level and image-level dual discrimination for masks to generate compatible masks with the target objects. MGDG-GAN mainly focuses on generating local defect regions and DM-GAN specializes in generating masks, which are both trained on limited defect samples and abundant normal samples. Experiments conducted on the MVTec AD, DAGM 2007, and KolektorSDD2 benchmark datasets demonstrate that our method achieves promising results compared with other state-of-the-art approaches. Meanwhile, the generated defect samples significantly improve the performance of defect inspection tasks including classification and segmentation. Specifically, our method achieves KID$\times 10^{3}$/IS scores of 48.35/2.27 on MVTec AD, 15.37/2.44 on DAGM 2007, and 19.70/2.01 on KolektorSDD2. Furthermore, our method improves mIoU by 10.59%, 2.20%, and 2.17% on these datasets, respectively, using U-Net as the segmentation model.