MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388859038 · doi:10.3390/s23239315

UAV-Based Image and LiDAR Fusion for Pavement Crack Segmentation

2023· article· en· W4388859038 on OpenAlexafffund
Ahmed Elamin, Ahmed El‐Rabbany

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Ontario
KeywordsRGB color modelSegmentationLidarArtificial intelligenceConvolutional neural networkComputer scienceComputer visionAerial imageElevation (ballistics)Remote sensingImage (mathematics)EngineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pavement surface maintenance is pivotal for road safety. There exist a number of manual, time-consuming methods to examine pavement conditions and spot distresses. More recently, alternative pavement monitoring methods have been developed, which take advantage of unmanned aerial systems (UASs). However, existing UAS-based approaches make use of either image or LiDAR data, which do not allow for exploring the complementary characteristics of the two systems. This study explores the feasibility of fusing UAS-based imaging and low-cost LiDAR data to enhance pavement crack segmentation using a deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) model. Three datasets are collected using two different UASs at varying flight heights, and two types of pavement distress are investigated, namely cracks and sealed cracks. Four different imaging/LiDAR fusing combinations are created, namely RGB, RGB + intensity, RGB + elevation, and RGB + intensity + elevation. A modified U-net with residual blocks inspired by ResNet was adopted for enhanced pavement crack segmentation. Comparative analyses were conducted against state-of-the-art networks, namely U-net and FPHBN networks, demonstrating the superiority of the developed DCNN in terms of accuracy and generalizability. Using the RGB case of the first dataset, the obtained precision, recall, and F-measure are 77.48%, 87.66%, and 82.26%, respectively. The fusion of the geometric information from the elevation layer with RGB images led to a 2% increase in recall. Fusing the intensity layer with the RGB images yielded a reduction of approximately 2%, 8%, and 5% in the precision, recall, and F-measure. This is attributed to the low spatial resolution and high point cloud noise of the used LiDAR sensor. The second dataset crack samples obtained largely similar results to those of the first dataset. In the third dataset, capturing higher-resolution LiDAR data at a lower altitude led to improved recall, indicating finer crack detail detection. This fusion, however, led to a decrease in precision due to point cloud noise, which caused misclassifications. In contrast, for the sealed crack, the addition of LiDAR data improved the sealed crack segmentation by about 4% and 7% in the second and third datasets, respectively, compared to the RGB cases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations22
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207