MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4303968572 · doi:10.3390/rs14194882

Concrete Bridge Defects Identification and Localization Based on Classification Deep Convolutional Neural Networks and Transfer Learning

2022· article· en· W4303968572 on OpenAlexaff
Hajar Zoubir, Mustapha Rguig, Mohamed El Aroussi, Abdellah Chehri, Rachid Saadane, Gwanggil Jeon

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceConvolutional neural networkArtificial intelligenceSegmentationBridge (graph theory)Transfer of learningPattern recognition (psychology)Deep learningBackpropagationVisual inspectionEfflorescenceContext (archaeology)AnnotationArtificial neural networkMachine learningGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conventional practices of bridge visual inspection present several limitations, including a tedious process of analyzing images manually to identify potential damages. Vision-based techniques, particularly Deep Convolutional Neural Networks, have been widely investigated to automatically identify, localize, and quantify defects in bridge images. However, massive datasets with different annotation levels are required to train these deep models. This paper presents a dataset of more than 6900 images featuring three common defects of concrete bridges (i.e., cracks, efflorescence, and spalling). To overcome the challenge of limited training samples, three Transfer Learning approaches in fine-tuning the state-of-the-art Visual Geometry Group network were studied and compared to classify the three defects. The best-proposed approach achieved a high testing accuracy (97.13%), combined with high F1-scores of 97.38%, 95.01%, and 97.35% for cracks, efflorescence, and spalling, respectively. Furthermore, the effectiveness of interpretable networks was explored in the context of weakly supervised semantic segmentation using image-level annotations. Two gradient-based backpropagation interpretation techniques were used to generate pixel-level heatmaps and localize defects in test images. Qualitative results showcase the potential use of interpretation maps to provide relevant information on defect localization in a weak supervision framework.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.493
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations49
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207