| Literature DB >> 35126484 |
Chun Li1,2,3, Yu Wen1, Qingxuan Shi1,2,3, Fang Yang1,2,3, Hongyan Ma4, Xuedong Tian1,2,3.
Abstract
To solve the problem of low detection accuracy due to the loss of detailed information when extracting pavement crack features in traditional U-shaped networks, a pavement crack detection method based on multiscale attention and hesitant fuzzy set (HFS) is proposed. First, the encoding-decoding structure is used to construct a pavement crack segmentation network, ResNeXt50 is used to extract features in the encoding stage, and a multiscale feature fusion module (MFF) is designed to obtain multiscale context information. Second, in the decoding stage, a high-efficiency dual attention module (EDA) is used to enhance the ability of capturing details of the cracks while suppressing background noise. Finally, the membership degree of the crack is calculated based on the advantages of the HFS in multiattribute decision-making to obtain the similarity of the crack, and the binary image after segmentation is judged by the hesitation fuzzy measure. The experiment was conducted on the public road crack dataset Crack500. In terms of segmentation performance, the evaluation indexes Intersection over Union (IoU), Precision, and Dice coefficients of the proposed network reached 55.56%, 74.26%, and 67.43%, respectively; in terms of classification performance, for transversal and longitudinal cracks, the classification accuracy was 84% ± 0.5%, while the block and the alligator were both 78% ± 0.5%. The experimental results prove that the crack details detected by the proposed method are more abundant, and the image detection effect of complex topological structures and small cracks are better.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35126484 PMCID: PMC8813266 DOI: 10.1155/2022/1822585
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1MACSNet framework.
Figure 2Efficient dual attention module.
Figure 3Multiscale feature fusion module.
Figure 4Decoder module.
Figure 5Fracture image analysis.
Figure 6Centroid angle.
Algorithm 1
Figure 7Original image and preprocessed image.
The effect of weight value changes on the results.
|
|
| Accuracy | Precision | Dice | IoU |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | — | 97.12 | 69.81 | 65.20 | 54.12 |
| 1 | 0.70 | 96.21 | 70.43 | 63.75 | 52.69 |
| 1 | 0.75 | 96.90 | 70.49 | 64.12 | 53.24 |
| 1 | 0.80 | 97.12 | 72.06 | 66.18 | 53.73 |
| 1 | 0.85 | 97.33 | 73.89 | 66.93 | 54.56 |
| 1 | 0.90 | 97.29 | 73.60 | 66.87 | 54.51 |
| 2 | 0.10 | 98.35 | 71.85 | 65.50 | 53.22 |
| 2 | 0.15 | 98.48 |
| 66.24 | 53.90 |
| 2 | 0.20 | 98.57 | 74.27 | 66.91 | 55.23 |
| 2 | 0.25 |
| 74.26 |
|
|
| 2 | 0.30 | 98.61 | 74.09 | 67.38 | 55.51 |
Bold values are the best performing values.
Test results of each algorithm's segmentation index on the Crack500 dataset.
| EDA | MFF | Focal loss | Precision % | Dice % | IoU % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ✓ | 70.35 | 65.45 | 53.73 | ||
| ✓ | ✓ | 72.60 | 66.56 | 54.96 | |
| ✓ | ✓ | 73.01 | 66.90 | 54.89 | |
| ✓ | 71.43 | 65.36 | 53.82 | ||
| ✓ | ✓ | 73.86 | 67.21 | 55.01 | |
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 74.26 | 67.43 | 55.56 |
Figure 8Segmentation results of each algorithm on the Crack500 dataset. (a) Image. (b) GT. (c) MACSNet. (d) U-Net. (e) DeepLabv3. (f) DeepLabv3+. (g) CE-Net.
Test results of each algorithm's segmentation index on the Crack500 dataset.
| Algorithm | Accuracy% | Precision% | Dice% | IoU% | FPS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U-Net [ | 96.12 | 69.88 | 65.33 | 53.22 | 47.49 |
| CE-Net [ | 96.89 | 70.47 | 63.85 | 51.59 | 43.90 |
| DeepLabv3 [ | 96.91 | 70.41 | 65.26 | 53.34 | 23.12 |
| DeepLabv3+ [ | 96.94 | 71.06 | 66.18 | 54.43 | 23.80 |
| MACSNet (our) | 98.62 | 74.26 | 67.43 | 55.56 | 30.91 |
Comparison with other advanced methods on the Crack500 dataset.
| Algorithm | Accuracy % | Precision % | IoU % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chen et al. [ | — | — | 51.40 |
| Augustauskas et al. [ | 98.32 | 64.47 | 53.34 |
| Cao et al. [ | N.A | 68.05 | 54.92 |
| MACSNet (our) | 98.62 | 74.26 | 55.56 |
Experimental results under different thresholds.
| T (%) | FS | NS | AS | P (%) | R (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 90 | 215 | 251 | 276 | 85.66 | 77.90 |
| 85 | 218 | 259 | 276 | 84.17 | 78.99 |
| 80 | 222 | 264 | 276 | 84.09 | 80.43 |
| 75 | 225 | 269 | 276 | 83.64 | 81.52 |
Experimental results of fracture classification based on hesitant fuzzy sets.
| Crack category | FS | NS | AS | P (%) | R (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T | 322 | 384 | 404 | 83.85 | 79.70 |
| V | 222 | 264 | 276 | 84.09 | 80.43 |
| M | 170 | 218 | 228 | 77.98 | 74.56 |
| C | 29 | 37 | 40 | 78.38 | 72.50 |
| Mean | 81.08 | 76.80 |
Performance comparison with the other two methods.
| Category | T | V | M | C | FPS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P% | R% | P% | R% | P% | R% | P% | R% | ||
| Method 1 | 83.40 | 80.02 | 83.40 | 80.02 | — | — | — | — | 0.50 |
| Method 2 | 82.91 |
| 83.94 | 79.96 | 75.61 | 74.23 | 74.95 | 72.19 | 2.13 |
| Our |
| 79.70 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 2.04 |