MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3018786341 · doi:10.1117/12.2558886

Water pipe valve detection by using deep neural networks

2020· article· en· W3018786341 on OpenAlexaff
Rakiba Rayhana, Yutong Jiao, Zheng Liu, Angie Wu, Xiangjie Kong

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsBI Pure Water (Canada)Okanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline transportComputer scienceRobotArtificial neural networkProcess (computing)Artificial intelligenceReal-time computingPipe network analysisSet (abstract data type)Water pipeMarine engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Condition assessment of underground buried utilities, especially water distribution networks, is crucial to the decision making process for pipe replacement and rehabilitation. Hence, regular inspection of the water pipelines is carried out with in-pipe inspection robots to assess the internal condition of the water pipelines. However, the inspection robots need to identify and negotiate with the valves to pass through. Therefore, the aim of this study is to detect the valves in water pipelines in real-time to ensure smooth operation of the inspection robot. In this paper, four state-of-the-art deep neural network algorithms namely, Faster R-CNN, RFCN, SSD, and YOLO are presented to perform the real-time valve detection analysis. The study shows that Faster R-CNN, pre-trained with Resnet101 outperforms all the selected models by achieving 97:35% and 76:73% mean Average precison (mAP) values when the threshold for prediction is set to 50% and 75% respectively. However, in terms of the detection rate in frames per second (FPS), YOLOv3-608 seems to have better processing speed than all other models.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.172
Teacher spread0.162 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWater Systems and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207