GCN-Based Pavement Crack Detection Using Mobile LiDAR Point Clouds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mobile Laser Scanning (MLS) system can provide high-density and accurate 3D point clouds that enable rapid pavement crack detection for road maintenance tasks. Supervised learning-based algorithms have been proved pretty effective for handling such a large amount of inhomogeneous and unstructured point clouds. However, these algorithms often rely on a lot of annotated data, which is labor-intensive and time-consuming. This paper presents a semi-supervised point-level approach to overcome this challenge. We propose a graph-widen module to construct a reasonable graph structure for point clouds, increasing the detection performance of graph convolutional networks (GCN). The constructed graph characterizes the local features from a small amount of annotated data, avoiding information loss and dramatically reduces the dependence on annotated data. The MLS point clouds acquired by a commercial RIEGL VMX-450 system are used in this study. The experimental results demonstrate that our method outperforms the state-of-the-art point-level methods in terms of recall, F1 score, and efficiency while achieving comparable accuracy.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".