A Review of Vision-Based Pothole Detection Methods Using Computer Vision and Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Potholes and other road surface damages pose significant risks to vehicles and traffic safety. The current methods of in situ visual inspection for potholes or cracks are inefficient, costly, and hazardous. Therefore, there is a pressing need to develop automated systems for assessing road surface conditions, aiming to efficiently and accurately reconstruct, recognize, and locate potholes. In recent years, various methods utilizing (a) computer vision, (b) three-dimensional (3D) point clouds, or (c) smartphone data have been employed to map road surface quality conditions. Machine learning and deep learning techniques have increasingly enhanced the performance of these methods. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of cutting-edge computer vision and machine learning algorithms for pothole detection. It covers topics such as sensing systems for acquiring two-dimensional (2D) and 3D road data, classical algorithms based on 2D image processing, segmentation-based algorithms using 3D point cloud modeling, machine learning, deep learning algorithms, and hybrid approaches. The review highlights that hybrid methods combining traditional image processing and advanced machine learning techniques offer the highest accuracy in pothole detection. Machine learning approaches, particularly deep learning, demonstrate superior adaptability and detection rates, while traditional 2D and 3D methods provide valuable baseline techniques. By reviewing and evaluating existing vision-based methods, this paper clarifies the current landscape of pothole detection technologies and identifies opportunities for future research and development. Additionally, insights provided by this review can inform the design and implementation of more robust and effective systems for automated road surface condition assessment, thereby contributing to enhanced roadway safety and infrastructure management.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".