Computer vision for road imaging and pothole detection: a state-of-the-art review of systems and algorithms
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Computer vision algorithms have been utilized for 3-D road imaging and pothole detection for over two decades. Nonetheless, there is a lack of systematic survey articles on state-of-the-art (SoTA) computer vision techniques, especially deep learning models, developed to tackle these problems. This article first introduces the sensing systems employed for 2-D and 3-D road data acquisition, including camera(s), laser scanners and Microsoft Kinect. It then comprehensively reviews the SoTA computer vision algorithms, including (1) classical 2-D image processing, (2) 3-D point cloud modelling and segmentation and (3) machine/deep learning, developed for road pothole detection. The article also discusses the existing challenges and future development trends of computer vision-based road pothole detection approaches: classical 2-D image processing-based and 3-D point cloud modelling and segmentation-based approaches have already become history; and convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have demonstrated compelling road pothole detection results and are promising to break the bottleneck with future advances in self/un-supervised learning for multi-modal semantic segmentation. We believe that this survey can serve as practical guidance for developing the next-generation road condition assessment systems.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it