Papers
arxiv:2605.30581

Prior Availability in Industrial Visual Sim-to-Real: A Review of CAD-Guided and CAD-Unavailable Regimes

Published on May 28
Authors:
,

Abstract

Industrial visual sim-to-real is reframed as a domain-gap problem categorized by prior availability, distinguishing CAD-available, CAD-unavailable, and boundary-prior settings for robust deployment across varied industrial conditions.

AI-generated summary

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.

Community

Sign up or log in to comment

Get this paper in your agent:

hf papers read 2605.30581
Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash

Models citing this paper 0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2605.30581 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper 0

No dataset linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2605.30581 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.

Spaces citing this paper 0

No Space linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2605.30581 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.

Collections including this paper 0

No Collection including this paper

Add this paper to a collection to link it from this page.