Towards robust fracture mapping: benchmarking automatic fracture mapping in 2D outcrop imagery
Abstract. Extracting consistent and accurate fracture traces from large volumes of high-resolution imagery remains a persistent challenge in structural analysis. We present a harmonised benchmarking dataset, FraXet, for pixel-wise fracture segmentation in high-resolution RGB orthophotos and digital elevation models (DEMs). FraXet curates images from three publicly available datasets, totalling 8953 256 × 256 RGB+DEM patches spanning diverse lithologies and imaging conditions. We use this dataset to systematically assess traditional image-processing filters (Canny, Sobel, Gabor, Sato, phase congruency) and two deep-learning (DL) models, U-Net and SegFormer, for per-pixel fracture detection. Quantitative comparison using image-quality (e.g., MSE, PSNR), segmentation (e.g., Precision, Recall, F1, IoU) and proposed similarity FracSim metrics suggest that the deep models substantially outperform classical filters (F1 ≈ 03 −0.5 vs ≤ 0.29), giving smoother, more continuous fracture traces with reduced noise. Training on the combined dataset (M_all) improves cross-site generalisation relative to models trained on the individual sub-datasets. Challenges remain in handling annotation misalignments, illumination artifacts, and thin traces. More importantly, probability maps derived from the DL approaches enable confidence-based triage and visualisation of model uncertainty. This work thus establishes a unified benchmark, curated dataset, and reproducible baseline to support further development of robust automated tools for fracture detection.
Dear authors,
Please find attached my review of your manuscript "Towards robust fracture mapping: benchmarking automatic fracture mapping in 2D outcrop imagery". The study utilises a training dataset comprising of three published datasets to assess a range of traditional and deep-learning models to achieve fracture network interpretations. This is an area of growth in the community, and a systematic comparison of methods would be of use to those using, or assessing output from, these models. Whilst i found the results were well handled and provided a robust statistical approach to comparing datasets, the manuscript was difficult to follow and the research cap and implications poorly laid out. In particular i found the level of references to be very limited, with a wealth of literature in this, and the wider fracture network characterisation fields not called upon. This made it difficult to see where the work fit in, and how the results apply to fracture analysis more generally. As such, at present, i have to suggest that the manuscript is rejected due to the number of changes required to make it acceptable for publication. Although i am sure this is disappointing, I hope my review is helpful and i look forward to seeing a revised version of this work in the future.
Please see below the attached annotated manuscript with my specific comments.
Kind regards,
Dr. Billy Andrews