MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206250991 · doi:10.1155/2022/7851562

Crack Detection Method of Sleeper Based on Cascade Convolutional Neural Network

2022· article· en· W4206250991 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Liming Li, Shubin Zheng, Chenxi Wang, Shuguang Zhao, Xiaodong Chai, Lele Peng, Qianqian Tong, Ji Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Artificial neural networkResidualCascadeNetwork modelFeature extractionComputer visionAlgorithmEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work presents a new method for sleeper crack identification based on cascade convolutional neural network (CNN) to address the problem of low efficiency and poor accuracy in the traditional detection method of sleeper crack identification. The proposed algorithm mainly includes improved You Only Look Once version 3 (YOLOv3) and the crack recognition network, where the crack recognition network includes two modules, the crack encoder-decoder network (CEDNet) and the crack residual refinement network (CRRNet). The improved YOLOv3 network is used to identify and locate cracks on sleepers and segment them after the sleeper on the ballast bed is extracted by using the gray projection method. The sleeper is inputted into CEDNet for crack feature extraction to predict the coarse crack saliency map. The prediction graph is inputted into CRRNet to improve its edge information and local region to achieve optimization. The accuracy of the crack identification model is improved by using a mixed loss function of binary cross-entropy (BCE), structural similarity index measure (SSIM), and intersection over union (IOU). Results show that this method can accurately detect the sleeper crack image. During object detection, the proposed method is compared with YOLOv3 in terms of directly locating sleeper cracks. It has an accuracy of 96.3%, a recall rate of 91.2%, a mean average precision (mAP) of 91.5%, and frames per second (FPS) of 76.6/s. In the crack extraction part, the F-weighted is 0.831, mean absolute error (MAE) is 0.0157, and area under the curve (AUC) is 0.9453. The proposed method has better recognition, higher efficiency, and robustness compared with the other network 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.592
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207