Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Condition documentation for traditional stone carvings requires comparable and repeatable records, yet field images are often limited by small samples, class imbalance, multi-defect co-occurrence, and diffuse defect boundaries. This study uses 643 field images from 26 courtyards in the Guanzhong region to examine classification granularity, model performance, and conservation applicability. Three tasks were defined: M1 for defect presence, M2 for six-class multi-label recognition, and M3 for eleven-class fine-grained recognition. Under courtyard-grouped nested cross-validation, in which the held-out fold is never used for model selection or threshold tuning, ResNet-50 achieved an F1 of 0.8908 ± 0.0055 on M1, with macro-F1 falling to 0.5378 ± 0.0148 on M2 and 0.3274 ± 0.0159 on M3. Model and training variants did not consistently outperform the baseline, and fine-tuned vision–language models reached comparable accuracy on M2 (0.5719) at far higher training cost. Class-wise analysis showed pronounced differences in reliability, with artificial damage at an F1 of 0.7361 and abrasion at 0.3409; false positives were more frequent in images containing other defect labels, while abrasion and soiling showed high missed-detection rates. M1 is suitable for defect screening and M2 can support defect typing and expert review, whereas M3 is presented as a data-sufficiency assessment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: