Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 53 references

CrossDiff: Diffusion Probabilistic Model With Cross-conditional Encoder-Decoder for Crack Segmentation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper introduces CrossDiff, a diffusion probabilistic model with cross-conditional encoder and decoder that, the authors claim, is the first diffusion-based framework for crack segmentation and that outperforms prior state-of-the-art…

desk verdict The 8% SOTA claim is not yet trustworthy because the evaluation protocol mixes ensembling with an unspecified train/test split; the diffusion-plus-cross-attention idea is plausible but the paper's own ablation limits the claimed contribution. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12860 v1 pith:5Q7GO4FH submitted 2025-01-22 cs.CV

Xianglong Shi , Yunhan Jiang , Xiaoheng Jiang , Mingling Xu , Yang Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords cracksegmentationdiffusionprobabilisticmodelcross-conditionalencoder-decoderslenderdetectionconcretesurfaceinspectionimagedeeplearning
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

The paper proposes CrossDiff, a diffusion probabilistic model adapted to pixel-level crack segmentation, and claims it is the first such model for this task. The authors argue that the iterative denoising process of diffusion models is naturally suited to slender, low-contrast cracks because information propagation along similar pixels keeps thin crack regions coherent. They report state-of-the-art Dice and IoU on five challenging datasets—CFD, CrackTree200, DeepCrack, GAPs384, and Rissbilder—with an average improvement of 8.0 percentage points over the previous best method, with especially large gains on datasets containing the thinnest cracks. If the result holds under equal evaluation conditions, it would make diffusion conditioning a leading approach for fine-structure segmentation in industrial inspection.

What carries the argument

The central object is a Diffusion Probabilistic Model (DPM) whose step-estimation function is cross-conditioned by an image encoder and a decoder. The forward process adds Gaussian noise to the ground-truth segmentation mask; the reverse process learns to denoise using the raw image as a conditioning signal, written as $\epsilon(x_t, I, t) = D((E_{I_t} + E_{x_t}, t), t)$, where $E_{I_t}$ is the Cross Encoder embedding of the raw image and $E_{x_t}$ is the embedding of the current noisy mask. The Cross Encoder (patch embedding, positional encoding, Transformer blocks) pulls image priors into the diffusion encoder, the Cross Decoder refines semantic features and adds a direct reconstruction loss, and the Fusion Nexus modulates the fusion with the current noise-level step $t$. This machinery is what the paper claims lets the model keep slender crack structures coherent during iterative denoising.

What would settle it

Retrain every baseline and CrossDiff under a single protocol: one fixed, published split of the combined dataset, no ensembling, and a single forward pass at inference. If the average Dice/IoU gap between CrossDiff and SegDecNet++ drops below statistical significance (e.g., less than 2–3 points after multiple seeds), the central claim of architecture-driven superiority is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

CrossDiff couples a standard denoising diffusion backbone (a UNet that progressively denoises a noisy segmentation mask) with a cross-conditional encoder-decoder: a ViT-style Cross Encoder that injects raw-image features into each denoising step, and a Cross Decoder that reconstructs the segmentation mask directly and whose loss also supervises the diffusion encoder. A Fusion Nexus module combines the two feature streams using time-step information. The paper's central claim is that this cross-shaped conditioning lets the model retain crack detail and semantic context simultaneously, yielding better Dice/IoU than CNN- and Transformer-based segmentation baselines. On CFD, for example, it reports 91.34 Dice and 85.54 IoU versus 77.80 and 64.14 for SegDecNet++. The Cross Decoder is used only during training, acting as a regularizer, while inference runs the diffusion chain five times and fuses the samples with the STAPLE algorithm.

Load-bearing premise

The reported 8-point gain assumes the comparison is fair, yet the paper applies a 5-time ensemble with STAPLE fusion only to CrossDiff and does not describe how the combined dataset was split into training and test sets.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • CrossDiff's reported gains are largest on CFD and CrackTree200, the two datasets with the slenderest cracks, suggesting the method is particularly effective where thin structures make standard segmentation fail.
  • The training-only Cross Decoder loss acts as a form of deep supervision: the diffusion encoder is optimized both for denoising and for direct segmentation, which may explain the improved Dice and IoU.
  • Because the method is trained on a combined dataset drawn from seven published crack sources, the same cross-conditional diffusion design should transfer to other industrial defect segmentation tasks, such as corrosion or scratch detection.
  • The threshold-stability result (Dice/IoU nearly constant between thresholds 0.3 and 0.9) indicates the model produces confident, well-calibrated masks, reducing the need for careful threshold tuning in practice.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 8.0% average improvement is heavily weighted by two thin-crack datasets, so the advantage is plausibly tied to slender-object geometry; the same architecture may transfer to blood-vessel or hair segmentation in medical imaging, which share that geometry.
  • The paper does not report baseline results with the same 5-time ensemble and STAPLE fusion; a straightforward test is whether the gap persists when every method receives identical inference-time ensembling, since STAPLE alone can boost scores on thin structures.
  • Since the Cross Decoder is dropped at inference, the inference cost is essentially a standard diffusion UNet plus cross-encoder; ablation could show whether the training-only decoder is necessary for the reported gains or is removable for a cheaper deployment.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes CrossDiff, a diffusion probabilistic model with a cross-conditional encoder-decoder for pixel-level crack segmentation. The method combines a DDPM backbone with a ViT-based Cross Encoder, a Fusion Nexus module, and a training-only Cross Decoder, and is trained on a 7169-image compilation of five crack datasets. The paper reports Dice and IoU for five datasets, compares against DeepLabv3+, SCCDNet-D32, DeepCrack, CrackFormer, and SegDecNet++, and claims an average 8.0% improvement over SegDecNet++. An ablation study examines the contribution of the Cross Encoder and Cross Decoder. The central claim is empirical state-of-the-art performance for slender crack segmentation.

Significance. If the reported results are reproducible under a clean evaluation protocol, CrossDiff would be a useful new application of diffusion probabilistic models to slender-structure segmentation and a credible baseline for crack segmentation. The paper has clear strengths: it addresses a practically important problem, uses standard metrics (Dice and IoU), compares with several recent named baselines, and includes an ablation. However, the current evidence does not establish the central claim because the training/test split and the inference protocol are underspecified, and the ablation table is difficult to interpret. The contribution is therefore promising but not yet verified.

major comments (4)
  1. [Dataset] The Dataset section states that the model is trained and evaluated on the 7169-image compilation of Li et al. (2021), but it does not specify how the images are partitioned into training and test sets. Because the constituent crack datasets are collected as image patches from a small number of scenes, an image-level random split can place near-duplicate patches from the same surface in both training and testing, which would inflate the per-dataset Dice/IoU scores in Table 1. Please specify the exact split protocol, report whether any image-level or scene-level overlap exists between training and test, and state how the five evaluation datasets in Table 1 relate to the CRACK500 and Non-crack portions of the compilation.
  2. [Implementation Details] The Implementation Details section says 'All models are set 5 times of ensemble in the inference' and that STAPLE is used to fuse different samples, but no single-model or fusion-free results are reported. For deterministic baselines, five forward passes produce identical outputs unless test-time augmentation or other stochasticity is used, so the sentence is ambiguous. If STAPLE fusion is applied only to CrossDiff's stochastic samples, the comparison with baselines in Table 1 is not apples-to-apples. Please report CrossDiff with a single sample, with multiple samples without STAPLE, and with the full protocol, and state explicitly what was done for each baseline.
  3. [Ablation Studies (Table 3)] Table 3's column labels are not legible in the provided text, and the row layout makes it impossible to determine which variant corresponds to the Cross Encoder alone and which to the Cross Decoder alone. The sentence 'Cross Encoder and Cross Decoder improve 1.36% and 1.35% in average IoU' cannot be verified from the table as printed. Please relabel the rows unambiguously and report each component separately, jointly, and with increasing complexity, so that the contribution of each module to the final 71.61 IoU is clear.
  4. [Method, Eq. (3)] Equation (3) is a classical graph label-propagation recurrence, not the DDPM forward/reverse process used by the proposed model. The paragraph concluding that 'diffusion segmentation performs better when dealing with particularly slender objects' is an analogy rather than a derivation, and the contribution statement claiming 'formulaic validation' overstates the support. Either remove the proof claim or connect Equation (3) to the actual training objective in Equation (4).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Method, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) writes p(x0:T-1|xT) = product p(xt-1|xt) without conditioning on the input image I; in a conditional diffusion model the reverse step should be p(xt-1|xt, I).
  2. [Method, Eq. (2) and Eq. (4)] The notation in Equations (2) and (4) is under-specified: the roles of E_I_t, E_x_t, xe, and xd,t are not defined clearly, and the plus sign in Equation (2) could mean concatenation or addition. Please define each symbol and specify the loss weights alpha and beta and the number of diffusion steps T in the Implementation Details.
  3. [Results, Table 2] In Table 2, CrossDiff reports identical Dice and IoU values for thresholds 0.3, 0.5, and 0.7, which suggests the fused output is effectively binary; please explain how thresholding interacts with the STAPLE-fused probabilistic outputs.
  4. [Abstract and Main Results] The claim of an '8.0%' improvement in both Dice and IoU should be accompanied by the exact averaging rule (weighted by sample numbers) and a per-dataset table of improvements, since the unweighted averages from Table 1 differ from the abstract's single number.
  5. [Ablation Studies] There are typos in the ablation paragraph: 'donate' should be 'denote' and 'Eecoder' should be 'Encoder'. Also, the phrase 'as the complexity of the Cross Encoder and Cross Decoder increases, it is difficult for the model to converge' is not supported by any convergence curves or training-loss plots.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the architecture and benchmarks are self-contained and externally evaluated, with concerns about split/ensemble protocol being validity issues rather than circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain in CrossDiff is not circular. The proposed contribution is an architecture (Cross Encoder, Fusion Nexus, Cross Decoder) grafted onto a standard DDPM backbone, trained with the modified noise-prediction loss in Eq. 4 plus a supervised decoder term (x_{d,t} - x0)^2. This objective is not a redefinition of Dice/IoU, and the reported 8.0% improvement is an empirical comparison against external baselines on public datasets (CFD, CrackTree200, DeepCrack, GAPs384, Rissbilder). The qualitative graph-propagation discussion around Eq. 3 is a motivating analogy, not the actual training objective, and it does not insert the target result into the premises. There are no load-bearing self-citations, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. The most serious concerns — the unspecified train/test partition of the 7169-image compiled dataset and the potentially uneven use of 5-times ensembling with STAPLE inference — are experimental-validity and reproducibility issues, not circularity: they do not make the conclusion equivalent to its inputs by construction. Under the stated hard rules, correctness risks of this kind should not raise the circularity score. Therefore the paper receives a score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on unstated hyperparameters (beta, T), a hand-chosen ensemble count, an unverified dataset split, and a non-formal analogy between graph diffusion and DPMs. These are the main supports the reader must accept on faith.

free parameters (3)
  • loss weight beta
    Introduced in Eq. 4 to balance the diffusion loss and cross-decoder loss; its value is not reported in the paper.
  • number of diffusion timesteps T
    A standard DDPM hyperparameter that the paper does not specify, yet the entire method depends on it.
  • ensemble count = 5
    The paper uses 5-times ensemble with STAPLE fusion during inference, a hand-chosen setting that materially affects the reported results.
assumptions (3)
  • standard math The DDPM formulation from Ho et al. (2020) is correct and applicable to the segmentation task as used in Eqs. 1 and 4.
    Background result invoked without proof, which is standard for this literature.
  • domain assumption The training and evaluation datasets are split such that no evaluation image appears in the training set.
    The paper does not describe the split; the combined dataset includes the five evaluation datasets, so leakage cannot be ruled out.
  • domain assumption Pixels in slender objects have high mutual similarity, so graph-based label propagation justifies using diffusion models for slender crack segmentation.
    This is the informal argument in the 'Towards Generative Slender Segmentation' section; it is asserted, not proven, and the connection to the actual DPM is not formal.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CrossDiff: Diffusion Probabilistic Model With Cross-conditional Encoder-Decoder for Crack Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5Q7GO4FH

@misc{pith2026250112860,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CrossDiff: Diffusion Probabilistic Model With Cross-conditional Encoder-Decoder for Crack Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5Q7GO4FH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12860}
}
read the original abstract

Crack Segmentation in industrial concrete surfaces is a challenging task because cracks usually exhibit intricate morphology with slender appearances. Traditional segmentation methods often struggle to accurately locate such cracks, leading to inefficiencies in maintenance and repair processes. In this paper, we propose a novel diffusion-based model with a cross-conditional encoder-decoder, named CrossDiff, which is the first to introduce the diffusion probabilistic model for the crack segmentation task. Specifically, CrossDiff integrates a cross-encoder and a cross-decoder into the diffusion model to constitute a cross-shaped diffusion model structure. The cross-encoder enhances the ability to retain crack details and the cross-decoder helps extract the semantic features of cracks. As a result, CrossDiff can better handle slender cracks. Extensive experiments were conducted on five challenging crack datasets including CFD, CrackTree200, DeepCrack, GAPs384, and Rissbilder. The results demonstrate that the proposed CrossDiff model achieves impressive performance, outperforming other state-of-the-art methods by 8.0% in terms of both Dice score and IoU. The code will be open-source soon.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12860 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison between natural and conventional scene images with industrial crack images. The top row showcases im [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An illustration of CrossDiff. CrossDiff consists of Diffusion backbone and cross-conditional encoder-decoder, includ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The sequence of images, progressing from top to bottom, includes the input image, SegDecNet++ (Tabernik, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Amit, T.; Shaharbany, T.; Nachmani, E.; and Wolf, L. 2021. Segdiff: Image segmentation with diffusion probabilistic models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.00390

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Bergmann, P.; Fauser, M.; Sattlegger, D.; and Steger, C. 2019. MVTec AD--A comprehensive real-world dataset for unsupervised anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 9592--9600

    2019

  5. [5]

    Betker, J.; Goh, G.; Jing, L.; Brooks, T.; Wang, J.; Li, L.; Ouyang, L.; Zhuang, J.; Lee, J.; Guo, Y.; et al. 2023. Improving image generation with better captions. Computer Science. https://cdn. openai. com/papers/dall-e-3. pdf, 2(3): 8

    2023

  6. [6]

    Chen, L.-C.; Zhu, Y.; Papandreou, G.; Schroff, F.; and Adam, H. 2018. Encoder-decoder with atrous separable convolution for semantic image segmentation. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), 801--818

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    G.; Kirillov, A.; and Girdhar, R

    Cheng, B.; Misra, I.; Schwing, A. G.; Kirillov, A.; and Girdhar, R. 2022. Masked-attention mask transformer for universal image segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 1290--1299

    2022

  8. [8]

    Cheng, B.; Schwing, A.; and Kirillov, A. 2021. Per-pixel classification is not all you need for semantic segmentation. Advances in neural information processing systems, 34: 17864--17875

    2021

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Choi, W.; and Cha, Y.-J. 2019. SDDNet: Real-time crack segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 67(9): 8016--8025

    2019

  2. [10]

    Ding, W.; Yang, H.; Yu, K.; and Shu, J. 2023. Crack detection and quantification for concrete structures using UAV and transformer. Automation in Construction, 152: 104929

    2023

  3. [11]

    J.; and Maguire, M

    Dorafshan, S.; Thomas, R. J.; and Maguire, M. 2018. SDNET2018: An annotated image dataset for non-contact concrete crack detection using deep convolutional neural networks. Data in brief, 21: 1664--1668

    2018

  4. [12]

    Dosovitskiy, A.; Beyer, L.; Kolesnikov, A.; Weissenborn, D.; Zhai, X.; Unterthiner, T.; Dehghani, M.; Minderer, M.; Heigold, G.; Gelly, S.; et al. 2020. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929

    2020 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Du, Y.; Zhong, S.; Fang, H.; Wang, N.; Liu, C.; Wu, D.; Sun, Y.; and Xiang, M. 2023. Modeling automatic pavement crack object detection and pixel-level segmentation. Automation in Construction, 150: 104840

    2023

  6. [14]

    Eisenbach, M.; Stricker, R.; Seichter, D.; Amende, K.; Debes, K.; Sesselmann, M.; Ebersbach, D.; Stoeckert, U.; and Gross, H.-M. 2017. How to get pavement distress detection ready for deep learning? A systematic approach. In 2017 international joint conference on neural networ...

    2017

  7. [15]

    A.; Van Gool, L.; Williams, C

    Everingham, M.; Eslami, S. A.; Van Gool, L.; Williams, C. K.; Winn, J.; and Zisserman, A. 2015. The pascal visual object classes challenge: A retrospective. International journal of computer vision, 111: 98--136

    2015

  8. [16]

    C.; Zhang, A.; Chen, C.; Li, J

    Fei, Y.; Wang, K. C.; Zhang, A.; Chen, C.; Li, J. Q.; Liu, Y.; Yang, G.; and Li, B. 2019. Pixel-level cracking detection on 3D asphalt pavement images through deep-learning-based CrackNet-V. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 21(1): 273--284

    2019

  9. [17]

    Guo, F.; Qian, Y.; Liu, J.; and Yu, H. 2023. Pavement crack detection based on transformer network. Automation in Construction, 145: 104646

    2023

  10. [18]

    C.; Celebi, E.; Helba, B.; Marchetti, M.; Mishra, N.; and Halpern, A

    Gutman, D.; Codella, N. C.; Celebi, E.; Helba, B.; Marchetti, M.; Mishra, N.; and Halpern, A. 2016. Skin lesion analysis toward melanoma detection: A challenge at the international symposium on biomedical imaging (ISBI) 2016, hosted by the international skin imaging collaborat...

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    He, K.; Gkioxari, G.; Doll \'a r, P.; and Girshick, R. 2017. Mask r-cnn. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, 2961--2969

    2017

  12. [20]

    Ho, J.; Jain, A.; and Abbeel, P. 2020. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 6840--6851

    2020

  13. [21]

    H \"u thwohl, P.; and Brilakis, I. 2018. Detecting healthy concrete surfaces. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 37: 150--162

    2018

  14. [22]

    A.-M.; Kee, S.-H.; Pathan, A.-S

    Khan, M. A.-M.; Kee, S.-H.; Pathan, A.-S. K.; and Nahid, A.-A. 2023. Image Processing Techniques for Concrete Crack Detection: A Scientometrics Literature Review. Remote Sensing, 15(9): 2400

    2023

  15. [23]

    Kheradmandi, N.; and Mehranfar, V. 2022. A critical review and comparative study on image segmentation-based techniques for pavement crack detection. Construction and Building Materials, 321: 126162

    2022

  16. [24]

    C.; Lo, W.-Y.; et al

    Kirillov, A.; Mintun, E.; Ravi, N.; Mao, H.; Rolland, C.; Gustafson, L.; Xiao, T.; Whitehead, S.; Berg, A. C.; Lo, W.-Y.; et al. 2023. Segment anything. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 4015--4026

    2023

  17. [25]

    Koch, C.; Georgieva, K.; Kasireddy, V.; Akinci, B.; and Fieguth, P. 2015. A review on computer vision based defect detection and condition assessment of concrete and asphalt civil infrastructure. Advanced engineering informatics, 29(2): 196--210

    2015

  18. [26]

    K \"o nig, J.; Jenkins, M.; Mannion, M.; Barrie, P.; and Morison, G. 2022. What's Cracking? A Review and Analysis of Deep Learning Methods for Structural Crack Segmentation, Detection and Quantification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.03714

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Li, F.; Kim, T.; Humayun, A.; Tsai, D.; and Rehg, J. M. 2013. Video segmentation by tracking many figure-ground segments. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, 2192--2199

    2013

  20. [28]

    Li, H.; Yue, Z.; Liu, J.; Wang, Y.; Cai, H.; Cui, K.; and Chen, X. 2021. Sccdnet: A pixel-level crack segmentation network. Applied Sciences, 11(11): 5074

    2021

  21. [29]

    Liu, H.; Miao, X.; Mertz, C.; Xu, C.; and Kong, H. 2021. CrackFormer: Transformer Network for Fine-Grained Crack Detection. In 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 3763--3772

    2021

  22. [30]

    Liu, Y.; Yao, J.; Lu, X.; Xie, R.; and Li, L. 2019. DeepCrack: A deep hierarchical feature learning architecture for crack segmentation. Neurocomputing, 338: 139--153

    2019

  23. [31]

    Loshchilov, I.; and Hutter, F. 2017. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Maeda, H.; Sekimoto, Y.; Seto, T.; Kashiyama, T.; and Omata, H. 2018. Road damage detection and classification using deep neural networks with smartphone images. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 33(12): 1127--1141

    2018

  25. [33]

    S.; Hammad, A

    Munawar, H. S.; Hammad, A. W.; Haddad, A.; Soares, C. A. P.; and Waller, S. T. 2021. Image-based crack detection methods: A review. Infrastructures, 6(8): 115

    2021

  26. [34]

    D.; Tran, T

    Nguyen, S. D.; Tran, T. S.; Tran, V. P.; Lee, H. J.; Piran, M. J.; and Le, V. P. 2023. Deep learning-based crack detection: A survey. International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology, 16(4): 943--967

    2023

  27. [35]

    Q.; and Dhariwal, P

    Nichol, A. Q.; and Dhariwal, P. 2021. Improved denoising diffusion probabilistic models. In International conference on machine learning, 8162--8171. PMLR

    2021

  28. [36]

    Pak, M.; and Kim, S. 2021. Crack detection using fully convolutional network in wall-climbing robot. In Advances in Computer Science and Ubiquitous Computing: CSA-CUTE 2019, 267--272. Springer

    2021

  29. [37]

    Panella, F.; Lipani, A.; and Boehm, J. 2022. Semantic segmentation of cracks: Data challenges and architecture. Automation in Construction, 135: 104110

    2022

  30. [38]

    Pang, J.; Zhang, H.; Zhao, H.; and Li, L. 2022. DcsNet: a real-time deep network for crack segmentation. Signal, Image and Video Processing, 1--9

    2022

  31. [39]

    Rombach, R.; Blattmann, A.; Lorenz, D.; Esser, P.; and Ommer, B. 2022. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 10684--10695

    2022

  32. [40]

    L.; Ghasemipour, K.; Gontijo Lopes, R.; Karagol Ayan, B.; Salimans, T.; et al

    Saharia, C.; Chan, W.; Saxena, S.; Li, L.; Whang, J.; Denton, E. L.; Ghasemipour, K.; Gontijo Lopes, R.; Karagol Ayan, B.; Salimans, T.; et al. 2022. Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding. Advances in neural information processing syste...

    2022

  33. [41]

    Shi, Y.; Cui, L.; Qi, Z.; Meng, F.; and Chen, Z. 2016. Automatic road crack detection using random structured forests. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 17(12): 3434--3445

    2016

  34. [42]

    Tabernik, D.; S uc, M.; and Sko c aj, D. 2023. Automated detection and segmentation of cracks in concrete surfaces using joined segmentation and classification deep neural network. Construction and Building Materials, 408: 133582

    2023

  35. [43]

    N.; Kaiser, .; and Polosukhin, I

    Vaswani, A.; Shazeer, N.; Parmar, N.; Uszkoreit, J.; Jones, L.; Gomez, A. N.; Kaiser, .; and Polosukhin, I. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30

    2017

  36. [44]

    K.; Zou, K

    Warfield, S. K.; Zou, K. H.; and Wells, W. M. 2004. Simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE): an algorithm for the validation of image segmentation. IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 23(7): 903--921

    2004

  37. [45]

    Wolleb, J.; Sandk \"u hler, R.; Bieder, F.; Valmaggia, P.; and Cattin, P. C. 2022. Diffusion models for implicit image segmentation ensembles. In International Conference on Medical Imaging with Deep Learning, 1336--1348. PMLR

    2022

  38. [46]

    Wu, J.; Fu, R.; Fang, H.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, Y.; Xiong, H.; Liu, H.; and Xu, Y. 2024. Medsegdiff: Medical image segmentation with diffusion probabilistic model. In Medical Imaging with Deep Learning, 1623--1639. PMLR

    2024

  39. [47]

    M.; and Luo, P

    Xie, E.; Wang, W.; Yu, Z.; Anandkumar, A.; Alvarez, J. M.; and Luo, P. 2021. SegFormer: Simple and efficient design for semantic segmentation with transformers. Advances in neural information processing systems, 34: 12077--12090

    2021

  40. [48]

    Yang, F.; Zhang, L.; Yu, S.; Prokhorov, D.; Mei, X.; and Ling, H. 2019. Feature pyramid and hierarchical boosting network for pavement crack detection. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 21(4): 1525--1535

    2019

  41. [49]

    C.; Li, B.; Yang, E.; Dai, X.; Peng, Y.; Fei, Y.; Liu, Y.; Li, J

    Zhang, A.; Wang, K. C.; Li, B.; Yang, E.; Dai, X.; Peng, Y.; Fei, Y.; Liu, Y.; Li, J. Q.; and Chen, C. 2017. Automated pixel-level pavement crack detection on 3D asphalt surfaces using a deep-learning network. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 32(10): 805--819

    2017

  42. [50]

    M.; Tajbakhsh, N.; and Liang, J

    Zhou, Z.; Rahman Siddiquee, M. M.; Tajbakhsh, N.; and Liang, J. 2018. Unet++: A nested u-net architecture for medical image segmentation. In Deep Learning in Medical Image Analysis and Multimodal Learning for Clinical Decision Support: 4th International Workshop, DLMIA 2018, a...

    2018

  43. [51]

    Zhou, Z.; Zhang, J.; and Gong, C. 2023. Hybrid semantic segmentation for tunnel lining cracks based on Swin Transformer and convolutional neural network. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 38(17): 2491--2510

    2023

  44. [52]

    Zou, Q.; Cao, Y.; Li, Q.; Mao, Q.; and Wang, S. 2012. CrackTree: Automatic crack detection from pavement images. Pattern Recognition Letters, 33(3): 227--238

    2012

  45. [53]

    Zou, Q.; Zhang, Z.; Li, Q.; Qi, X.; Wang, Q.; and Wang, S. 2018. Deepcrack: Learning hierarchical convolutional features for crack detection. IEEE transactions on image processing, 28(3): 1498--1512

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.