| Literature DB >> 29780407 |
Gang Hu1,2, Kejun Wang1, Yuan Peng3, Mengran Qiu3, Jianfei Shi1, Liangliang Liu1.
Abstract
The classification and recognition technology of underwater acoustic signal were always an important research content in the field of underwater acoustic signal processing. Currently, wavelet transform, Hilbert-Huang transform, and Mel frequency cepstral coefficients are used as a method of underwater acoustic signal feature extraction. In this paper, a method for feature extraction and identification of underwater noise data based on CNN and ELM is proposed. An automatic feature extraction method of underwater acoustic signals is proposed using depth convolution network. An underwater target recognition classifier is based on extreme learning machine. Although convolution neural networks can execute both feature extraction and classification, their function mainly relies on a full connection layer, which is trained by gradient descent-based; the generalization ability is limited and suboptimal, so an extreme learning machine (ELM) was used in classification stage. Firstly, CNN learns deep and robust features, followed by the removing of the fully connected layers. Then ELM fed with the CNN features is used as the classifier to conduct an excellent classification. Experiments on the actual data set of civil ships obtained 93.04% recognition rate; compared to the traditional Mel frequency cepstral coefficients and Hilbert-Huang feature, recognition rate greatly improved.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29780407 PMCID: PMC5892262 DOI: 10.1155/2018/1214301
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Structure chart of deep convolutional networks.
Figure 2Sketch figure of full connection neural networks.
Figure 3Sketch figure of partial connection.
Figure 4Build the input features of convolutional networks.
Figure 5Sketch figure of convolution process of single input feature figure.
Figure 6Convolution process sketch figure.
Figure 7Sketch figure of mean value pooling.
Figure 8Extreme learning machine classifier.
Figure 9Time domain diagram of underwater noise.
Figure 10Frequency domain diagram of underwater noise.
CNN structure parameters.
| Layer number | Type | Number of feature figures | Size of feature figures | Size of kernel | Length of step |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | Input layer | 1 | 2176 | — | — |
| (2) | Convolutional layer | 64 | 79 | 204 | 25 |
| (3) | Sampling layer | 64 | 39 | 2 | 2 |
| (4) | Convolutional layer | 128 | 28 | 12 | 1 |
| (5) | Sampling layer | 128 | 14 | 2 | 2 |
| (6) | Convolutional layer | 500 | 1 | 14 | 1 |
| (7) | Full connection | 2000 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| (8) | Full connection | 100 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| (9) | Full connection | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Value choice and selection of typical parameters.
| Parameters | Scope |
|---|---|
| Activated functions | ReLu |
| Size of learning rate | 0.02~0.05 |
| Decay rate of learning rate | 0.0005/Batch |
| Number of batch processing samples (Batch) | 200 |
| Impulse magnitude | 0.9 |
Comparison of different pooling methods.
| Frame size | Pooling method | Number of ELM hidden layer nodes | Recognition rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2176 | Maximum value | 40 | 92.88 |
| 2176 | Mean value | 40 | 90.80 |
| 2176 | Maximum value-mean value | 40 | 93.04 |
| 2176 | Mean value-maximum value | 40 | 91.65 |
Comparison of classification effects of different features.
| Feature types | Number of hidden layer neurons | ELM activated functions | Recognition rates (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| MFCC | 40 | Sigmoid | 84.64 |
| 60 | Sigmoid | 84.48 | |
| 80 | Sigmoid | 84.41 | |
| 60 | tanh | 82.39 | |
|
| |||
| HHT | 40 | Sigmoid | 81.06 |
| 60 | Sigmoid | 82.34 | |
| 40 | tanh | 81.72 | |
| 60 | tanh | 82.04 | |
|
| |||
| Deep learning feature | 40 | Sigmoid | 90.39 |
| 60 | Sigmoid | 92.69 | |
| 20 | tanh | 92.40 | |
| 40 | tanh | 93.04 | |
| 60 | tanh | 92.29 | |
Comparison of performance of different classifiers (MFCC features).
| Names of classifier | Training time (S) | Time of classification | Recognition rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| ELM | 3.73 × 10−5 | 1.37 × 10−5 | 84.64 |
| SVM | 1.69 × 10−4 | 5.88 × 10−5 | 80.67 |
| KNN | — | 5.00 × 10−5 | 78.66 |
Comparison of performance of different classifiers (convolutional networks features).
| Names of classifiers | Training time (s) | Time of classification (s) | Recognition rates (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| ELM | 3.82 × 10−5 | 1.24 × 10−5 | 93.04 |
| SVM | 1.12 × 10−4 | 4.05 × 10−5 | 82.67 |
| KNN | — | 9.73 × 10−5 | 86.67 |
Figure 11The coefficients of some convolution kernels.