Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 75 references

Deep Learning for Detecting Building Defects Using Convolutional Neural Networks

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A fine-tuned VGG-16 network classifies and localises dampness-driven building defects, reaching 87.50% test accuracy.

desk verdict A routine VGG-16 + CAM application to a new small defect dataset; the headline accuracy is not credible until the authors rule out patch-level leakage and fix their inconsistent reported numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04392 v1 pith:LNEZNRMD submitted 2019-08-06 cs.CV cs.AIcs.LGstat.ML

Husein Perez , Joseph H. M. Tah , Amir Mosavi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.LGstat.ML
keywords convolutionalneuralnetworkstransferlearningVGG-16classactivationmappingbuildingdefectdetectiondampnessmouldstructuralhealthmonitoring
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a convolutional neural network, adapted from a pre-trained VGG-16 model by transfer learning, can classify and locate the three most common dampness-driven building defects—mould, stain, and paint deterioration—from ordinary photographs. On a test set of 732 images, the authors report 87.50% overall accuracy, with per-class precision between 0.82 and 0.99, and they show that class activation mapping highlights the defective regions without any bounding-box training. The motivation is to replace slow, costly, and sometimes hazardous manual building inspections with fast image-based screening that can scale to drones and mobile devices. The paper presents this as a multi-class alternative to earlier crack-only binary defect detectors and as a step toward automated condition assessment of buildings.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the VGG-16 network used as a frozen feature extractor with a retrained classifier, joined to class activation mapping (CAM). VGG-16 is a 16-layer convolutional network pre-trained on ImageNet; the authors freeze the weights through the fourth convolutional block, allow only block five to update, replace the 1,000-way softmax with a 1×4 softmax, and train on 1,890 augmented images for 50 epochs. CAM then reuses the classifier weights by projecting them back onto the final convolutional feature maps through a global average pooling layer, producing a coarse heatmap of the image regions that drove the prediction. This machinery is what carries the argument: transfer learning supplies general visual features, fine-tuning adapts them to defect textures, and CAM supplies localisation without any bounding-box annotations.

What would settle it

Re-split the 2,622 thumbnails so that all thumbnails originating from one original photograph stay in the same split, retrain under the same hyperparameters, and compare test accuracy. If accuracy drops well below 87.50% or stain/deterioration recall falls sharply, the claimed generalisation is an artefact of patch leakage. Separately, annotate defect regions on the test images and measure CAM localisation by intersection-over-union; if IoU is near zero on large-area defects such as those the paper shows as miss-localised, the localisation claim reduces to qualitative illustration.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim, stated in its own terms, is that fine-tuning an ImageNet pre-trained VGG-16 network—freezing the early convolutional blocks, retraining block five with a new four-way classifier for mould, stain, deterioration, and normal—and adding class activation mapping produces a robust detector and localiser for dampness-related building defects. The authors report 87.50% overall test accuracy on 732 images (183 per class), validation accuracy of 98.86%, and per-class precision from 0.82 (deterioration) to 0.99 (normal), with recall from 0.79 (stain) to 1.00 (normal). They also report that CAM heatmaps localise defects accurately in representative images, with incorrect localisation only in a few cases such as defects spread over large areas. The model is compared with ResNet-50 and Inception, and the VGG-16 variant is presented as the better choice for this small dataset because its training is smoother while accuracy is close.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 732 test images are genuinely independent of the 1,890 training images; since the dataset was built by slicing larger photographs into 224×224 thumbnails and the split is not described at the level of original photographs, patches from the same source image may appear in both training and test sets, which would inflate the reported 87.50% accuracy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the 87.50% test accuracy holds under genuinely independent splits, building condition surveys could be triaged from photographs, with normal images filtered out automatically and suspicious ones flagged for human inspection.
  • The same fine-tuning recipe should extend to other moisture-related defects such as spalling, efflorescence, and corrosion, because the ImageNet features are not specific to the three classes studied.
  • Because CAM needs no bounding-box annotations, training data for new defect types can be collected with image-level labels only, which is far cheaper than the detailed annotation required by region-proposal detectors.
  • The comparison with ResNet-50 and Inception suggests that shallower pre-trained networks may be the safer default for small, specialised defect datasets, guiding architecture choice in similar surveys.
  • A single forward pass yields both class and localisation, so the approach is compatible with real-time deployment on drones and mobile devices.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper's claim: the test set may not be independent at the level of original photographs, because the dataset was created by slicing larger images into 224×224 thumbnails and the split is described only at thumbnail level; a patch-aware re-split could produce lower accuracy.
  • The test set is artificially balanced at 183 images per class, whereas real buildings are mostly normal; field precision and recall would likely differ from the reported figures under natural class distributions.
  • The localisation result is qualitative; measuring CAM against annotated defect masks with intersection-over-union would turn the claim into a quantifiable one and would reveal how well the method handles large, spread-out defects, which the paper shows as failure cases.
  • A natural testable extension is to apply the identical transfer-learning setup to public crack or spalling datasets; if the multi-class advantage persists, the method generalises beyond dampness defects, and if not, the advantage is specific to this dataset.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a convolutional neural network (CNN) approach for detecting and localizing building defects (mould, stain, and paint deterioration) using transfer learning with a fine-tuned VGG-16 model, supplemented by class activation mapping (CAM) for localization. The authors construct a dataset of 2622 images by slicing source photographs into 224x224 thumbnails, use 1890 images for training, designate 382 of those as a validation set, and reserve 732 images for testing (183 per class). They report a test accuracy of 87.50%, per-class precision/recall/F1 values in Table 1, and qualitative CAM localization examples. The paper claims the model is robust and accurate for building defect detection and localization.

Significance. If the results are valid, the work addresses a practically important problem in automated building condition assessment, with a multi-class detection scheme and localization capability, and it demonstrates that transfer learning can be effective on a relatively small dataset. The use of CAM for defect localization without bounding-box annotations is a useful contribution. However, the central empirical claim depends on the integrity of the train/test split and on the consistency of the reported metrics, both of which currently raise substantial concerns.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.1 (Dataset)] The dataset construction by slicing original photographs into 224x224 thumbnails, followed by drawing the training and test sets from the same 2622-thumbnail pool, creates a serious risk of train/test leakage: if thumbnails originating from the same source photograph appear in both the training and test splits, the network can exploit source-specific texture, lighting, and defect patterns, and the reported 87.50% test accuracy can be inflated beyond genuine generalization to unseen building surfaces. The authors must provide a source-disjoint split, or otherwise demonstrate that no source image contributes patches to both training and test sets, for the accuracy claim to be meaningful.
  2. [Section 4.3 (Results)] The numerical results are internally inconsistent: the correct-classification counts given in Figure 6 (167 mould + 145 stain + 157 deterioration + 183 normal = 652 correct out of 732) imply an overall accuracy of 89.1%, not the stated 87.50%, and the miss-classification breakdown in the text implies a stain precision of 145/(145+13+12) ≈ 0.85, whereas Table 1 reports 0.89. Additionally, the text states '84% precision for mould' while Table 1 lists mould precision as 0.90. These discrepancies mean the reported performance metrics do not support the paper's accuracy and robustness claims as written and must be reconciled with the raw confusion matrix.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1 (Dataset)] The validation set is described as '20% of the training data (382 images out of the 1890 images)', but 20% of 1890 is 378, not 382; please correct the arithmetic or clarify how the 382 number was obtained.
  2. [Section 4.3 (Results)] The text says 'the overall precision of the model ranges between 82% for detecting deterioration, 84% for mould, and 89% for stain', but Table 1 gives precision values of 0.82, 0.90, and 0.89 for these classes respectively; the text and table should be made consistent, either by correcting the text or the table.
  3. [Section 4.3 (Results)] The text states 'approximately 85% success rate in classifying stain' and '80% success rate in classifying paint deterioration', which appear to contradict the recall values of 0.79 and 0.86 in Table 1; please clarify which metric is meant by 'success rate' and align the numbers.
  4. [Abstract] The word 'compaired' should be 'compared'.
  5. [Section 3.4 (Object Localisation Using CAM)] The description of CAM as using 'the gradient of an object under consideration entering the final convolutional layer' is not accurate for the original CAM method of Zhou et al. (2016), which uses global average pooling and the output-layer weights rather than gradients; consider clarifying the description or distinguishing it from gradient-based methods such as Grad-CAM.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the accuracy and localisation claims rest on an independent empirical evaluation, not on a fitted or self-referential construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical result: a fine-tuned VGG-16, pretrained on ImageNet, is evaluated on 732 held-out test images with a reported accuracy of 87.50%, per-class precision/recall, and CAM-based localisation shown on example images. None of these numbers is defined into existence by an equation. The model is trained on one split (1890 images, with 382 of those used for validation) and tested on the remaining 732 images; the test accuracy is a measured outcome, not a parameter fitted to reproduce it. The transfer-learning setup uses VGG-16 weights pretrained on ImageNet, which is an external, independent source of features rather than a self-citation or an ansatz whose validity is being asserted by the same authors. The CAM localisation follows Zhou et al. [41], an external published method, and is applied post hoc to the trained classifier; the localisation figures are qualitative demonstrations, not a derived consequence that assumes the conclusion. The authors' own prior work appears only in the reference list (e.g., ref. [3]) and is not load-bearing for the detection or localisation claims. The known weakness of this paper is the possibility of patch-level leakage because source photographs were sliced into 224x224 thumbnails before the train/test split, with no stated guarantee that thumbnails from the same source image were kept together. That is a data-validity or soundness concern about whether the test set measures generalisation to unseen buildings; it is not a circularity, because the reported accuracy is not forced by construction, by a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, or by a self-citation chain. Under a strict circularity analysis, the derivation chain is self-contained and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is an empirical accuracy measurement. The model weights and hyperparameters are fit to the training/validation data, which is standard practice and not a hidden free parameter in a derivation. No physical or theoretical constants are introduced. The main load-bearing assumptions relate to dataset quality, split integrity, and the validity of the CAM localisation visualisations.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The manually labelled classes (mould, stain, deterioration, normal) are accurate and consistent.
    The central accuracy claim depends on the ground truth labels being correct, but the paper does not describe any expert verification or annotation protocol beyond stating the labels.
  • domain assumption Slicing images into 224x224 patches and randomly splitting the pool does not create train/test leakage.
    Section 4.1 describes slicing images to increase the dataset but does not state that patches from the same source image are kept in the same split; if not, the reported test accuracy could be inflated.
  • domain assumption Transfer learning from ImageNet improves classification performance on building defect images compared to training from scratch.
    Section 4.2 adopts ImageNet-pretrained VGG-16 as the model; the paper does not compare against training from scratch, so the benefit of transfer learning is assumed.
  • domain assumption CAM heatmaps correspond to the true defect locations.
    Section 4.3 presents localisation only as qualitative example images, with no quantitative comparison to ground truth bounding boxes or regions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deep Learning for Detecting Building Defects Using Convolutional Neural Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LNEZNRMD

@misc{pith2026190804392,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deep Learning for Detecting Building Defects Using Convolutional Neural Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LNEZNRMD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04392}
}
read the original abstract

Clients are increasingly looking for fast and effective means to quickly and frequently survey and communicate the condition of their buildings so that essential repairs and maintenance work can be done in a proactive and timely manner before it becomes too dangerous and expensive. Traditional methods for this type of work commonly comprise of engaging building surveyors to undertake a condition assessment which involves a lengthy site inspection to produce a systematic recording of the physical condition of the building elements, including cost estimates of immediate and projected long-term costs of renewal, repair and maintenance of the building. Current asset condition assessment procedures are extensively time consuming, laborious, and expensive and pose health and safety threats to surveyors, particularly at height and roof levels which are difficult to access. This paper aims at evaluating the application of convolutional neural networks (CNN) towards an automated detection and localisation of key building defects, e.g., mould, deterioration, and stain, from images. The proposed model is based on pre-trained CNN classifier of VGG-16 (later compaired with ResNet-50, and Inception models), with class activation mapping (CAM) for object localisation. The challenges and limitations of the model in real-life applications have been identified. The proposed model has proven to be robust and able to accurately detect and localise building defects. The approach is being developed with the potential to scale-up and further advance to support automated detection of defects and deterioration of buildings in real-time using mobile devices and drones.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04392 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Basic ConvNet Architecture. Input images in neural networks are expressed as multi-dimensional arrays where each colour pixel is represented by a number between 0 and 255. Grey scale images are represented by a 1-D array, while RGB images are represented by a 3-D array, where the colour channels (Red, Green and Blue) represent the depth of the array. In the convolutional layers, different filters with smaller dimens… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. CNN-CAM localisation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M.; Wakefield, R

    Mohseni, H.; Setunge, S.; Zhang, G. M.; Wakefield, R. In Condition monitoring and condition aggregation for optimised decision making in management of buildings, Applied Mechanics and Materials, 2013; Trans Tech Publ: 2013; pp 1719-1725

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    A.; Martinez, J

    Agdas, D.; Rice, J. A.; Martinez, J. R.; Lasa, I. R., Comparison of visual inspection and structural - health monitoring as bridge condition assessment methods. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 2015, 30, (3), 04015049

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Particle swarm optimization model to predict scour depth around bridge pier

    Shamshirband, S.; Mosavi, A.; Rabczuk, T., Particle swarm optimization model to predict scour depth around bridge pier. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.08863 2019

    work page Pith review arXiv 1906

  4. [4]

    Sensors and Actuators A: Physical 2017, 253, 165-172

    Zhang, Y.; Anderson, N.; Bland, S.; Nutt, S.; Jursich , G.; Joshi, S., All -printed strain sensors: Building blocks of the aircraft structural health monitoring system. Sensors and Actuators A: Physical 2017, 253, 165-172

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    B.; Abdaoui, A.; Elfouly, T.; Ahmed, M

    Noel, A. B.; Abdaoui, A.; Elfouly, T.; Ahmed, M. H.; Badawy, A.; Shehata, M. S., Structural health monitoring using wireless sensor networks: A comprehensive survey. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 2017, 19, (3), 1403-1423

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    M.; Kohler, M

    Kong, Q.; Allen, R. M.; Kohler, M. D.; Heaton, T. H.; Bunn, J., Structural health monitoring of buildings using smartphone sensors. Seismological Research Letters 2018, 89, (2A), 594-602

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    In Multidisciplinary DigitalPublishing Institute: 2017

    Song, G.; Wang, C.; Wang, B., Structural health monitoring (SHM) of civil structures. In Multidisciplinary DigitalPublishing Institute: 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Annamdas, V. G. M.; Bhalla, S.; Soh, C . K., Applications of structural health monitoring technology in Asia. Structural Health Monitoring 2017, 16, (3), 324-346

    work page 2017

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 2016, 66, 268-281

    Lorenzoni, F.; Casarin, F.; Caldon, M.; Islami, K.; Modena, C., Uncertainty quantification in structural health monitoring: Applicat ions on cultural heritage buildings. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 2016, 66, 268-281

    2016

  2. [10]

    K.; Kim, K

    Oh, B. K.; Kim, K. J.; Kim, Y.; Park, H. S.; Adeli, H., Evolutionary learning based sustainable strain sensing model for structural health monitoring of high -rise buildings. Applied Soft Computing 2017, 58, 576-585

    2017

  3. [11]

    Mita, A. In Gap between technically accurate information and socially appropriate information for structural health monitoring system installed into tall buildings, Health Monitoring of Structural and Biological Systems 2016, 2016; International Society for Optics and Photonic...

    2016

  4. [12]

    Procedia Engineering 2017, 188, 163-169

    Mimura, T.; Mita, A., Automatic estimation of natural frequencies and damping ratios of building structures. Procedia Engineering 2017, 188, 163-169

    2017

  5. [13]

    L.; Yang, Y

    Zhang, F. L.; Yang, Y. P.; Xiong, H. B.; Yang, J. H.; Yu, Z., Structural health monitoring of a 250‐ m super‐tall building and operational modal analysis using the fast Bayesian FFT method. Structural Control and Health Monitoring 2019, e2383

    2019

  6. [14]

    R.; Kutz, J

    Davoudi, R.; Miller, G. R.; Kutz, J. N., Structural load estimation using machine vision and surface crack patterns for shear-critical RC beams and slabs. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 2018, 32, (4), 04018024

    2018

  7. [15]

    D., Image Processing -Based Recognition of Wall Defects Using Machine Learning Approaches and Steerable Filters

    Hoang, N. D., Image Processing -Based Recognition of Wall Defects Using Machine Learning Approaches and Steerable Filters. Comput. Intell. Neurosci. 2018, 2018

    2018

  8. [16]

    In Studies in Computational Intelligence, Springer Verlag: 2017; Vol

    Jo, J.; Jadidi, Z.; Stantic, B., A drone -based building inspection system using software -agents. In Studies in Computational Intelligence, Springer Verlag: 2017; Vol. 737, pp 115-121

    2017

  9. [17]

    Infrared Phys Technol 2018, 88, 57-69

    Pahlberg, T.; Thurley, M.; Popovic, D.; Hagman, O., Crack detection in oak flooring lamellae using ultrasound-excited thermography. Infrared Phys Technol 2018, 88, 57-69

    2018

  10. [18]

    Gupta, R., Deterioration assessment of infrastructure using fuzzy logic and image processing algorithm

    Pragalath, H.; Seshathiri, S.; Rathod, H.; Esakki, B. ; Gupta, R., Deterioration assessment of infrastructure using fuzzy logic and image processing algorithm. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 2018, 32, (2), 04018009

    2018

  11. [19]

    Autom Constr 2019, 106

    Valero, E.; Forster, A.; Bosché, F.; Hyslop, E.; Wilson, L.; Turmel, A., Automated defect detection and classification in ashlar masonry walls using machine learning. Autom Constr 2019, 106

    2019

  12. [20]

    In High Level -of-Detail BIM and Machine Learning for Automated Masonr y Wall Defect Surveying, ISARC

    Valero, E.; Forster, A.; Bosché, F.; Renier, C.; Hyslop, E.; Wilson, L. In High Level -of-Detail BIM and Machine Learning for Automated Masonr y Wall Defect Surveying, ISARC. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction, 2018; IAARC Pub...

    2018

  13. [21]

    “David” Position-invariant neural network for digital pavement crack analysis

    Lee, B.J.; Lee, H. “David” Position-invariant neural network for digital pavement crack analysis. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2004, 19, 105–118

    2004

  14. [22]

    Pothole detection in asphalt pavement images

    Koch, C.; Brilakis, I. Pothole detection in asphalt pavement images. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2011, 25, 507–515

    2011

  15. [23]

    Automatic road defect detection by textural pattern recognition based on AdaBoost

    Cord, A.; Chambon, S. Automatic road defect detection by textural pattern recognition based on AdaBoost. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2012, 27, 244–259

    2012

  16. [24]

    Unsupervised approach for autonomous pavement-defect detection and quantification using an inexpensive depth sensor

    Jahanshahi, M.R.; Jazizadeh, F.; Masri, S.F.; Becerik -Gerber, B. Unsupervised approach for autonomous pavement-defect detection and quantification using an inexpensive depth sensor. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2012, 27, 743–754

    2012

  17. [25]

    Automated detection of multiple pavement defects

    Radopoulou, S.C.; Brilakis, I. Automated detection of multiple pavement defects. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2016, 31, 04016057

    2016

  18. [26]

    Analysis of edge -detection techniques for crack identification in bridges

    Abdel-Qader, I.; Abudayy eh, O.; Kelly, M.E. Analysis of edge -detection techniques for crack identification in bridges. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2003, 17, 255–263

    2003

  19. [27]

    State of the art in sensor technologies for sewer inspection

    Duran, O.; Althoefer, K.; Seneviratne, L.D. State of the art in sensor technologies for sewer inspection. IEEE Sens. J. 2002, 2, 73–81

    2002

  20. [28]

    Automated detection of cracks in buried concrete pipe images

    Sinha, S.K.; Fieguth, P.W. Automated detection of cracks in buried concrete pipe images. Autom. Constr. 2006, 15, 58–72

    2006

  21. [29]

    Neuro -fuzzy network for the classification of buried pipe defects

    Sinha, S.K.; Fieguth, P.W. Neuro -fuzzy network for the classification of buried pipe defects. Autom. Constr. 2006, 15, 73–83

    2006

  22. [30]

    Visual Pattern Recognition Supporting Defect Reporting and Condition Assessment of Wastewater Collection Systems

    Guo, W.; Soibelman, L.; Garrett, J.H. Visual Pattern Recognition Supporting Defect Reporting and Condition Assessment of Wastewater Collection Systems. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2009, 23, 160–169

    2009

  23. [31]

    Densely Connected Convolutional Networks

    Huang, G.; Liu, Z.; Weinberger, K.Q. Densely Connected Convolutional Networks. CoRR 2016, abs/1608.06993

    2016 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Rapid entropy -based detection and properties measurement of concrete spalling with machine vision for post -earthquake safety assessments

    German, S.; Brilakis, I.; DesRoches, R. Rapid entropy -based detection and properties measurement of concrete spalling with machine vision for post -earthquake safety assessments. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2012, 26, 846–858

    2012

  25. [33]

    Identifying Collapsed Buildings Using Post -Earthquake Satellite Imagery and Convolutional Neural Networks: A Case Study of the 2010 Haiti Earthquake

    Ji, M.; Liu, L.; Buchroithner, M. Identifying Collapsed Buildings Using Post -Earthquake Satellite Imagery and Convolutional Neural Networks: A Case Study of the 2010 Haiti Earthquake. Remote Sens. 2018, 10

    2010

  26. [34]

    ISO 19208:2016- Framework for specifying performance in buildings; ISO, 2016

    Organisation (ISO), I.S. ISO 19208:2016- Framework for specifying performance in buildings; ISO, 2016

    2016

  27. [35]

    Defects in Buildings: Symptoms, Investigation, Diagnosis and Cure; Stationery Office, 2001

    Limited, C.S. Defects in Buildings: Symptoms, Investigation, Diagnosis and Cure; Stationery Office, 2001

    2001

  28. [36]

    Building maintenance; Macmillan International Higher Education, 1987

    Seeley, I.H. Building maintenance; Macmillan International Higher Education, 1987

    1987

  29. [37]

    Defects and Deterioration in Buildings: A Practical Guide to the Science and Technology of Material Failure; Routledge, 2002

    Richardson, B. Defects and Deterioration in Buildings: A Practical Guide to the Science and Technology of Material Failure; Routledge, 2002

    2002

  30. [38]

    Building maintenance; John Wiley & Sons, 2009

    Wood, B.J. Building maintenance; John Wiley & Sons, 2009

    2009

  31. [39]

    Construction technology 3: The techn ology of refurbishment and maintenance; Macmillan International Higher Education, 2011

    Riley, M.; Cotgrave, A. Construction technology 3: The techn ology of refurbishment and maintenance; Macmillan International Higher Education, 2011

    2011

  32. [40]

    Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition

    Simonyan, K.; Zisserman, A. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. ArXiv Prepr. ArXiv14091556 2014

    2014

  33. [41]

    Learning deep features for discriminative localization

    Zhou, B.; Khosla, A.; Lapedriza, A.; Ol iva, A.; Torralba, A. Learning deep features for discriminative localization. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition; 2016; pp. 2921–2929

    2016

  34. [42]

    Understanding dampness; BREbookshop, 2004

    Trotman, P.M.; Harrison, H. Understanding dampness; BREbookshop, 2004

    2004

  35. [43]

    Diagnosing damp; RICS books, 2003

    Burkinshaw, R.; Parrett, M. Diagnosing damp; RICS books, 2003

    2003

  36. [44]

    Treatment of damp in old buildings; Technical pamphlet 8, Society for the protection of ancient buildings, Eyre & Spottiswoode Ltd, 1986

    Thomas, A.R. Treatment of damp in old buildings; Technical pamphlet 8, Society for the protection of ancient buildings, Eyre & Spottiswoode Ltd, 1986

    1986

  37. [45]

    Defects and moisture problems in buildings from historical city centres: a case study in Portugal

    Lourenço, P.B.; Luso, E.; A lmeida, M.G. Defects and moisture problems in buildings from historical city centres: a case study in Portugal. Build. Environ. 2006, 41, 223–234

    2006

  38. [46]

    General building defects: causes, symptoms and remedial work

    Bakri, N.N.O.; Mydin, M.A.O. General building defects: causes, symptoms and remedial work. Eur. J. Technol. Des. 2014, 4–17

    2014

  39. [47]

    Road Damage Detection and Classification with Faster R - CNN

    Wang, W.; Wu, B.; Yang, S.; Wang, Z. Road Damage Detection and Classification with Faster R - CNN. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data); IEEE, 2018; pp. 5220–5223

    2018

  40. [48]

    Autonomous structural visual inspection using region -based deep learning for detecting multiple damage types

    Cha, Y.-J.; Choi, W.; Suh, G.; Mahmoudkhani, S.; Büyüköztürk, O. Autonomous structural visual inspection using region -based deep learning for detecting multiple damage types. Comput. - Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2018, 33, 731–747

    2018

  41. [49]

    Turkbey, E.; Summers, R

    Roth, H.; Farag, A.; Lu, L.; B. Turkbey, E.; Summers, R. Deep convolutional networks for pancreas segmentation in CT imaging. 2015, 9413

    2015

  42. [50]

    A neural network for visual pattern recognition

    Fukushima, K. A neural network for visual pattern recognition. Computer 1988, 65–75

    1988

  43. [51]

    Deep convolutional neural networks for image classification: A comprehensive review

    Rawat, W.; Wang, Z. Deep convolutional neural networks for image classification: A comprehensive review. Neural Comput. 2017, 29, 2352–2449

    2017

  44. [52]

    A “Brief” History of Neural Nets and Deep Learning Available online: /writing/ai/a-brief-history- of-neural-nets-and-deep-learning/ (accessed on Jun 27, 2019)

    2019

  45. [53]

    How many hidden layers and nodes? Int

    Stathakis, D. How many hidden layers and nodes? Int. J. Remote Sens. 2009, 30, 2133–2147

    2009

  46. [54]

    Neural Networks Designing Neural Networks: Multi-Objective Hyper-Parameter Optimization

    Smithson, S.C.; Yang, G.; Gross, W.J.; Meyer, B.H. Neural Networks Designing Neural Networks: Multi-Objective Hyper-Parameter Optimization. ArXiv161102120 Cs 2016

    2016

  47. [55]

    Introduction to Neural Networks with Java; Heaton Research, Inc., 2008; ISBN 978 -1- 60439-008-7

    Heaton, J. Introduction to Neural Networks with Java; Heaton Research, Inc., 2008; ISBN 978 -1- 60439-008-7

    2008

  48. [56]

    -Y.; Gallagher, P.W.; Tu, Z

    Lee, C. -Y.; Gallagher, P.W.; Tu, Z. Generalizing Pooling Functions in Convolutional Neural Networks: Mixed, Gated, and Tree. 9

  49. [57]

    Fast image scanning with deep max-pooling convolutional neural networks

    Giusti, A.; Cireşan, D.C.; Masci, J.; Gambardella, L.M.; Schmidhuber, J. Fast image scanning with deep max-pooling convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing; 2013; pp. 4034–4038

    2013

  50. [58]

    Mixed Pooling for Convolutional Neural Netwo rks

    Yu, D.; Wang, H.; Chen, P.; Wei, Z. Mixed Pooling for Convolutional Neural Netwo rks. In Proceedings of the Rough Sets and Knowledge Technology; Miao, D., Pedrycz, W., Śl ȩzak, D., Peters, G., Hu, Q., Wang, R., Eds.; Springer International Publishing, 2014; pp. 364–375

    2014

  51. [59]

    Visual retrieval of concrete crack properties for automated post -earthquake structural safety evaluation. Autom. Constr. 2011, 20, 874–883

    2011

  52. [60]

    A Survey on Transfer Learning

    Pan, S.J.; Yang, Q. A Survey on Transfer Learning. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 2010, 22, 1345 – 1359

    2010

  53. [61]

    -J.; Kai Li; Li Fei -Fei ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database

    Deng, J.; Dong, W.; Socher, R.; Li, L. -J.; Kai Li; Li Fei -Fei ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition; IEEE: Miami, FL, 2009; pp. 248–255

    2009

  54. [62]

    Borrowing Treasures from the Wealthy: Deep Transfer Learning through Selective Joint Fine-tuning

    Ge, W.; Yu, Y. Borrowing Treasures from the Wealthy: Deep Transfer Learning through Selective Joint Fine-tuning. ArXiv170208690 Cs Stat 2017

    2017

  55. [63]

    Deep Transfer Metric Learning.; 2015; pp

    Hu, J.; Lu, J.; Tan, Y.-P. Deep Transfer Metric Learning.; 2015; pp. 325–333

    2015

  56. [64]

    -Q.; Zheng, P.; Xu, S.; Wu, X

    Zhao, Z. -Q.; Zheng, P.; Xu, S.; Wu, X. Object Detection with Deep Learning: A Review. ArXiv180705511 Cs 2018

    2018

  57. [65]

    Object Detectors Emerge in Deep Scene CNNs

    Zhou, B.; Khosla, A.; Lapedriza, A.; Oliva, A.; Torralba, A. Object Detectors Emerge in Deep Scene CNNs. ArXiv14126856 Cs 2014

    2014

  58. [66]

    Guide to Mold Colors and What They Mean Available online: http://www.safebee.com/home/guide-to-mold-colors-what-they-mean (accessed on Jun 19, 2019)

    2019

  59. [67]

    Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition

    He, K.; Zhang, X.; Ren, S.; Sun, J. Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition. CoRR 2015, abs/1512.03385

    2015 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Deep Neural Networks are Easily Fooled: High Confidence Predictions for Unrecognizable Images

    Nguyen, A.; Yosinski, J.; Clune, J. Deep Neural Networks are Easily Fooled: High Confidence Predictions for Unrecognizable Images. ArXiv14121897 Cs 2014

    2014

  61. [69]

    Training Confidence -calibrated Classifiers for Detecting Out-of- Distribution Samples

    Lee, K.; Lee, H.; Lee, K.; Shin, J. Training Confidence -calibrated Classifiers for Detecting Out-of- Distribution Samples. ArXiv171109325 Cs Stat 2017

    2017

  62. [70]

    On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks

    Guo, C.; Pleiss, G.; Sun, Y.; Weinberger, K.Q. On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks. ArXiv170604599 Cs 2017

    2017

  63. [71]

    Concrete Problems in AI Safety

    Amodei, D.; Olah, C.; Steinhardt, J.; Christiano, P.; Schulman, J.; Mané, D. Concrete Problems in AI Safety. ArXiv160606565 Cs 2016

    2016

  64. [72]

    Learning Confidence for Out -of-Distribution Detection in Neural Networks

    DeVries, T.; Taylor, G.W. Learning Confidence for Out -of-Distribution Detection in Neural Networks. ArXiv180204865 Cs Stat 2018

    2018

  65. [73]

    -J.; Choi, W.; Büyüköztürk, O

    Cha, Y. -J.; Choi, W.; Büyüköztürk, O. Deep learning -based crack damage detection using convolutional neural networks. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2017, 32, 361–378

    2017

  66. [74]

    Concrete Crack Images for Classification

    Özgenel, Ç.F. Concrete Crack Images for Classification. 2018, 1

    2018

  67. [75]

    SDNET2018: A concrete crack image dataset for machine learning applications

    Maguire, M.; Dorafshan, S.; Thomas, R. SDNET2018: A concrete crack image dataset for machine learning applications. Browse Datasets 2018

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.