工业视觉Sim-to-Real中的先验可用性:CAD引导与CAD不可用设置综述
阅读原文· arxiv.org该综述将工业视觉Sim-to-Real重新框架为基于先验可用性的域差距问题,区分了CAD可用(支持渲染、标定、位姿估计、分割及测试时几何验证)、CAD不可用(依赖法向参考外观、特征分布、教师‑学生残差、合成异常假设、基础特征或视觉‑语言先验)以及边界先验(仅保留部分CAD作用的近似模型、模板、参考视图或语义对应)三种设置。以T‑LESS/BOP、MVTec AD和VisA为实证锚点,发现CAD渲染数量本身并不能弥合迁移差距,源分布设计、检测器容量和小规模真实校准更为关键。测试时CAD通过掩码、姿态和深度一致性提供了独立验证通道,而CAD不可用检测则依赖校准的正常性和特征偏差。该文反对单一跨任务排行榜,主张根据先验可用性来部署决策。
Industrial visual sim-to-real is often described as transferring from synthetic images to real images, but industrial deployment usually involves a broader mismatch between available evidence and required decisions. A system may be built from CAD renderings, simulated RGB-D observations, normal reference images, synthetic defects, pretrained feature spaces, or language prompts, yet deployed under different sensors, lighting, materials, fixtures, calibration, production variation, and rare defect modes. This review reframes industrial visual sim-to-real as a domain-gap problem organized by prior availability. We distinguish CAD-available settings, where explicit object geometry can support rendering, calibration, pose estimation, segmentation, and test-time geometric verification; CAD-unavailable settings, where geometry is replaced by normal-reference appearance, feature distributions, teacher-student residuals, synthetic anomaly assumptions, foundation features, or vision-language priors; and boundary-prior settings, where approximate models, templates, reference views, or semantic correspondences preserve only part of the CAD role. This framing connects CAD-based detection and 6D pose-estimation literature with industrial anomaly and surface-inspection literature that is usually reviewed separately. To make the taxonomy concrete, we use empirical anchors on T-LESS/BOP, MVTec AD, and VisA. The anchors show that CAD render count alone does not close transfer; source-distribution design, detector capacity, and small real calibration can matter more. They also show that CAD at test time creates a distinct verification channel through mask, pose, and depth consistency, whereas CAD-unavailable inspection relies on calibrated normality and feature deviation. The review therefore argues against a single cross-task leaderboard and instead asks what prior grounds the deployment decision.