Generalized Extraction of Bolts, Mesh, and Rock in Tunnel Point Clouds: A Critical Comparison of Geometric Feature-Based Methods Using Random Forest and Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automatically identifying mine and tunnel infrastructure elements, such as rock bolts, from point cloud data improves deformation and quality control analyses and could ultimately contribute to improved safety on engineering projects. However, we hypothesize that existing methods are sensitive to small changes in object characteristics across datasets if trained insufficiently, and previous studies have only investigated single datasets. In this study, we present a cross-site training (generalization) investigation for a multi-class tunnel infrastructure classification task on terrestrial laser scanning data. In contrast to previous work, the novelty of this work is that the models are trained and tested across multiple datasets collected in different tunnels. We used two random forest (RF) implementations and one neural network (NN), as proposed in recent studies, on four datasets collected in different mines and tunnels in the US and Canada. We labeled points as belonging to one of four classes—rock, bolt, mesh, and other—and performed cross-site training experiments to evaluate accuracy differences between sites. In general, we found that the NN and RF models had similar performance to each other, and that same-site classification was generally successful, but cross-site performance was much lower and judged as not practically useful. Thus, our results indicate that standard geometric features are often insufficient for generalized classification of tunnel infrastructure, and these types of methods are most successful when applied to specific individual sites using interactive software for classification. Possible future research directions to improve generalized performance are discussed, including domain adaptation and deep learning methods.
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 | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".