Classification of surface pavement cracks as top-down, bottom-up, and cement-treated reflective cracking based on deep learning methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The treatment and repair strategies for reflective and fatigue cracking that initiate at the pavement surface (i.e., top-down cracking) and at the bottom of the asphalt concrete layer (i.e., bottom-up cracking) are noticeably different. However, pavement management engineers are facing difficulties in identifying these cracks in the field because they usually appear in visually identical patterns. The objective of this study was to develop artificial neural network (ANN) and convolutional neural network (CNN) applications to differentiate and classify top-down, bottom-up, and cement-treated reflective cracking in in-service flexible pavements using deep-learning models. The developed CNN model achieved an accuracy of 93.8% in the testing and 91% in the validation phases, and the ANN model showed an overall accuracy of 92%. The ANN classification tool was developed based on variables related to pavement and crack characteristics including pavement age, annual average daily traffic, thickness of the asphalt concrete layer, type of base, crack orientation, and crack location.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".