Automatic Detection and Classification of Underground Objects in Ground Penetrating Radar Images Using Machine Learning
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
Ground penetrating radar (GPR) is widely used in subsurface utility mapping. It is a nondestructive tool that has gained popularity in supporting underground drilling projects such as horizontal directional drilling (HDD). Even with the benefits including equipment portability, low cost, and high versatility in locating underground objects, GPR has a drawback of the time spent and expertise needed in data interpretation. Recent researchers have shown success in utilizing machine learning (ML) algorithms in GPR images for the automatic detection of underground objects. However, due to the lack of availability of labeled GPR datasets, most of these algorithms used synthetic data. This study presents the application of the state-of-the-art You Only Look Once (YOLO) v5 algorithm to detect underground objects using GPR images. A GPR dataset was prepared by collecting GPR images in a laboratory setup. For this purpose, a commercially available 2GHz high-frequency GPR antenna was used, and a dataset was collected with images of metal and PVC pipes, air and water voids, and boulders. The YOLOv5 algorithm was trained with a dataset that successfully detected and classified underground objects to their respective classes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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