Validation study demonstrates improved classification accuracy and calibration in degraded concrete sensing, indicating the value of selective multimodal acquisition.
Automated concrete-surface classification increasingly employs multimodal sensing, although a wide range of systems assume that all sensors remain continuously available, reliable, and suitable for fusion. This study presents Reliability-Aware Selective Multimodal Fusion (RASMF), an image-first framework in which supplementary acoustic evidence is requested conditionally, assessed for signal-quality anomalies, fused when appropriate, and rejected when necessary. RASMF was evaluated on 4094 class-associated image-acoustic observations using 5 duplicate-aware outer folds and three random seeds under clean, simulated-degradation, and missing-modality conditions. At the nominal 10% acquisition budget, realised acoustic acquisition was 25.67%. Relative to the predefined missing-aware image-first baseline, mean error decreased from 1.9777% to 1.4499%, an absolute reduction of 0.5279 percentage points and a relative reduction of 26.69%, with a two-way bootstrap 95% confidence interval of −1.6220 to −0.0661 percentage points. The mean Brier score decreased from 0.03033 to 0.01688. RASMF produced lower mean error in 12 of 16 simulated-degradation and modality-loss conditions, with 6 condition-specific confidence intervals excluding zero in its favour. Increasing acoustic acquisition progressively reduced mean error and calibration error but increased processing demand; estimated pipeline time was 24.77 ms at the nominal 10% setting compared with 20.60 ms at the nominal 0% setting. A simpler logit stacker achieved a slightly lower mean error of 1.4295%, and the difference from RASMF was not statistically supported. The results therefore support RASMF as an explicit reliability-aware selective decision architecture relative to the designated baseline, without establishing universal predictive superiority over simpler fusion strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fallahy et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: