Potential Use of LiDAR Data for Crack Detection: A Case Study on Pavement Cracks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) is a technology that provides three-dimensional point cloud data with high spatial accuracy. It is increasingly used in various applications and disciplines, including engineering. Along with other capabilities, LiDAR systems are able to record reflected backscattered energy as intensity data and measured distances to targets as range data. As the laser signal wavelength that operates in LiDAR sensors is typically in the near-infrared (NIR) spectrum, high spectral reflectance separability can be observed and a number of different materials distinguished. These capabilities have motivated researchers to study the applicability of using LiDAR range and intensity data for pavement crack extraction. The main goal of the present research is to examine the potential use of LiDAR range and intensity data for automated pavement crack detection. The study explores the following: a) crack detection using the two image classification logics of pixel-based and object-based image classification; b) crack detection using the Maximum Likelihood Classifier (MLC), the Random Trees Classifier (RTC), and the Support Vector Machine (SVM) classifier; c) crack detection by conducting image classification of four scenarios of multi-layer images generated from LiDAR data; and d) crack detection using LiDAR data with different point spacing. The experimental results indicate that the use of LiDAR data independently is effective for pavement crack detection. In addition, the results show that object-based image classification logic optimizes classification accuracy and crack detection results, and that employing SVM enhances the classification process and improves crack detection accuracy. It is also observed that using range data separately produces high accuracy for the crack detection results while the accuracy is slightly reduced when intensity data are combined with range data compared with using range data only. Furthermore, in the classification process, adding slope and aspect layers to range and intensity data decreases the accuracy of crack detection results, while increasing LiDAR data point spacing reduces crack extraction accuracy.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".