Metaheuristic-optimised gradient boosting models for predicting pavement quality and functional-structural performance indices
Source abstract
Abstract
The increasing demand for road maintenance has intensified the need for effective pavement management, where preventive strategies rely on accurate, interpretable predictions. This study developed XGBoost and CatBoost models optimised using Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) and Jellyfish Search Optimization (JSO) to predict PQI (PCI, RQI, RDI, SRI, and PWI) and PSSI. The models were trained on four years of highway survey data incorporating categorical variables (lane position, direction, maintenance history), climatic conditions, traffic volume, section length, and observed distress. JSO-optimised models demonstrated greater test stability than PSO-based counterparts. Validation results showed JSO-CatBoost R2 values of 0.8016 (PQI), 0.9344 (PCI), 0.6946 (RQI), 0.6027 (RDI), 0.6027 (SRI), 0.5924 (PWI), and 0.7366 (PSSI). SHAP analysis revealed physically consistent mechanisms, including non-additive crack interactions, moisture-accelerated ageing, and load-induced deformation. These findings indicate that JSO-CatBoost models provide quantifiable predictions of pavement condition indices, while SHAP provides interpretable insights, supporting condition assessment and index-based maintenance prioritisation.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Infrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring · Asphalt Pavement Performance Evaluation · Transport Systems and Technology
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Southeast University
CCCC First Harbor Engineering Company LTD.
Anhui Provincial Key Laboratory of Intelligent Detection and Diagnosis for Traffic Infrastructure
Anhui Jiaojian Traffic Development & Research Center Co., LTD.
Funding
Yunnan Province Major Science and Technology Special Project
References (45)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1080/10298436.2018.144141410.1080/10298436.2018.1441414 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.jobe.2025.11236710.1016/j.jobe.2025.112367 ↗
3. 10.1007/s42947-022-00253-z10.1007/s42947-022-00253-z ↗
4. 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.000064710.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000647 ↗
5. 10.1145/2939672.293978510.1145/2939672.2939785 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.trgeo.2020.10034310.1016/j.trgeo.2020.100343 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.amc.2020.12553510.1016/j.amc.2020.125535 ↗
8. 10.1007/s42947-025-00689-z10.1007/s42947-025-00689-z ↗
9. 10.1080/14680629.2025.245437610.1080/14680629.2025.2454376 ↗
10. 10.1080/10298436.2021.191082510.1080/10298436.2021.1910825 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.13618210.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.136182 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e0099110.1016/j.cscm.2022.e00991 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.trgeo.2024.10121610.1016/j.trgeo.2024.101216 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.asoc.2010.06.00310.1016/j.asoc.2010.06.003 ↗
15. JTG. (5210-2018). (2018). Highway performance assessment standards.
16. 10.1080/14680629.2024.237322210.1080/14680629.2024.2373222 ↗
17. 10.1109/ICNN.1995.48896810.1109/ICNN.1995.488968 ↗
18. 10.1080/10298436.2026.264149710.1080/10298436.2026.2641497 ↗
19. 10.1080/10298436.2025.259512910.1080/10298436.2025.2595129 ↗
20. 10.1080/10298436.2013.84223710.1080/10298436.2013.842237 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.autcon.2021.10411110.1016/j.autcon.2021.104111 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.aei.2022.10152510.1016/j.aei.2022.101525 ↗
23. 10.1038/s42256-019-0138-910.1038/s42256-019-0138-9 ↗
24. Lundberg, S. M., & Lee, S.-I. (2017). A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In I. Guyon, U. Von Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, & R. Garnett (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems (Vol. 30). Curran Associates, Inc. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2017/file/8a20a8621978632d76c43dfd28b67767-Paper.pdf.
25. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.11851310.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118513 ↗
26. 10.1080/10298436.2019.160967310.1080/10298436.2019.1609673 ↗
27. 10.3390/md804112210.3390/md8041122 ↗
28. 10.1007/s00521-022-07896-w10.1007/s00521-022-07896-w ↗
29. 10.1080/14680629.2024.241796110.1080/14680629.2024.2417961 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.aei.2025.10346610.1016/j.aei.2025.103466 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.trgeo.2020.10044110.1016/j.trgeo.2020.100441 ↗
32. Prokhorenkova, L., Gusev, G., Vorobev, A., Dorogush, A. V., & Gulin, A. (2018). Catboost: Unbiased boosting with categorical features. In S. Bengio, H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, K. Grauman, N. Cesa-Bianchi, & R. Garnett (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems (pp. 6639–6649). Curran Associates, Inchttps://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2018/file/14491b756b3a51daac41c24863285549-Paper.pdf.
33. 10.1080/10298436.2025.253119510.1080/10298436.2025.2531195 ↗
34. 10.1080/14680629.2019.161496910.1080/14680629.2019.1614969 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.aei.2024.10253910.1016/j.aei.2024.102539 ↗
36. 10.1080/10298436.2026.262456510.1080/10298436.2026.2624565 ↗
37. 10.1080/14680629.2025.257680710.1080/14680629.2025.2576807 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.13353410.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.133534 ↗
39. 10.1080/14680629.2020.171469910.1080/14680629.2020.1714699 ↗
40. 10.1080/10298436.2021.200181410.1080/10298436.2021.2001814 ↗
41. 10.1080/10298436.2025.260471110.1080/10298436.2025.2604711 ↗
42. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.12008310.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120083 ↗
43. 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.12508710.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125087 ↗
44. 10.1080/10298436.2025.261221710.1080/10298436.2025.2612217 ↗
45. 10.1177/0361198121102376510.1177/03611981211023765 ↗