Investigating Transfer Learning Performances of Deep Learning Models for Classification of GPR B-Scan Images
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
Recent advances in deep learning models have made them the state-of-the art method for image classification. Due to this success, they have been applied to many areas, such as satellite image processing, medical image interpretation, video processing, etc. Recently, deep learning models have been utilized for processing Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) data as well. However, studies general focus on building new Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) models instead of utilizing baseline ones. This paper investigates the usefulness of existing baseline CNN models for classifying GPR B-scan images and aims to determine how well pre-trained models perform. To that end, a real bridge deck GPR data, DECKGPRHv1.0 dataset was used to evaluate the transfer learning performances of various CNN models. Different variants of the models in terms of varying depths and number of parameters were also considered and evaluated in a comparative manner. Although it is an older model, ResNet achieved the best results with 0.998 accuracy. The experimental results showed that there is generally a direct correlation between the simplicity of the model and its success. Overall, it is concluded that near perfect results are possible by just adapting pre-trained models to the problem without fine-tuning.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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