| Literature DB >> 30208646 |
Jiaqi Shao1, Changwen Qu2, Jianwei Li3, Shujuan Peng4.
Abstract
With the continuous development of the convolutional neural network (CNN) concept and other deep learning technologies, target recognition in Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) images has entered a new stage. At present, shallow CNNs with simple structure are mostly applied in SAR image target recognition, even though their feature extraction ability is limited to a large extent. What's more, research on improving SAR image target recognition efficiency and imbalanced data processing is relatively scarce. Thus, a lightweight CNN model for target recognition in SAR image is designed in this paper. First, based on visual attention mechanism, the channel attention by-pass and spatial attention by-pass are introduced to the network to enhance the feature extraction ability. Then, the depthwise separable convolution is used to replace the standard convolution to reduce the computation cost and heighten the recognition efficiency. Finally, a new weighted distance measure loss function is introduced to weaken the adverse effect of data imbalance on the recognition accuracy of minority class. A series of recognition experiments based on two open data sets of MSTAR and OpenSARShip are implemented. Experimental results show that compared with four advanced networks recently proposed, our network can greatly diminish the model size and iteration time while guaranteeing the recognition accuracy, and it can effectively alleviate the adverse effects of data imbalance on recognition results.Entities:
Keywords: SAR; classification; convolutional neural network; depthwise separable convolution; imbalance data; visual attention
Year: 2018 PMID: 30208646 PMCID: PMC6165177 DOI: 10.3390/s18093039
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The structure of CSA block.
Figure 2The distribution of convolution kernel (a) in standard convolution (b) in depthwise separable convolution.
Figure 3The structure of different basic blocks in CNNs (a) residual block (b) inverted residual block (c) inverted residual block with channel-wise and spatial attention (IR-CSA).
Data processing in the bottleneck structure.
| Input | Operator | Output |
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The main structure of ResNet50 and our network.
| Output Size | ResNet50 | Our Network | Output Size |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| GAP, Fully connection, Cross entropy loss function | GAP, Fully connection, WDM loss function |
|
Figure 4Examples of MSTAR dataset.
Number of samples in training and testing set.
| T62 | T72 | BRDM-2 | BTR-60 | 2S1 | ZSU-234 | ZIL-131 | D7 | SLICY | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training | 299 | 423 | 298 | 256 | 299 | 299 | 299 | 299 | 298 | 2770 |
| Testing | 273 | 275 | 274 | 195 | 274 | 274 | 274 | 274 | 274 | 2387 |
Figure 5Statistical results of data set.
List of Experimental Data (VH/VV polarization).
| Cargo | Tanker | Tug | Dredging | Other | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| training | testing | training | testing | training | testing | training | testing | training | testing | |
| GRD | 1659 | 710 | 242 | 103 | 45 | 18 | – | – | 138 | 66 |
| SLC | 1225 | 525 | 345 | 146 | 19 | 7 | 17 | 6 | 189 | 78 |
Experimental results of GRD mode with VH polarization.
| Cargo | Tanker | Tug | Other |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cargo | 638 | 31 | 38 | 3 | 0.90 |
| Tanker | 41 | 36 | 9 | 17 | 0.35 |
| Tug | 12 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0.17 |
| Other | 34 | 10 | 2 | 20 | 0.30 |
| Total | 0.78 |
Experimental results of GRD mode with VV polarization.
| Cargo | Tanker | Tug | Other |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cargo | 629 | 31 | 45 | 5 | 0.89 |
| Tanker | 38 | 39 | 9 | 17 | 0.38 |
| Tug | 11 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 0.17 |
| Other | 33 | 10 | 1 | 22 | 0.33 |
| Total | 0.77 |
Experimental results of SLC mode with VH polarization.
| Cargo | Tanker | Tug | Dredging | Other |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cargo | 478 | 33 | 8 | 6 | 10 | 0.91 |
| Tanker | 32 | 87 | 7 | 9 | 11 | 0.60 |
| Tug | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0.29 |
| Dredging | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0.33 |
| Other | 29 | 6 | 9 | 7 | 27 | 0.35 |
| Total | 0.78 |
Figure 6Training curves of 5 CNN models (a) accuracy curves (b) loss curves.
Experimental results of recognition accuracy, model size and iteration time.
| Networks | Network-1 | Network-2 | ResNet50 | SE-ResNet 50 | Our Network |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 95.41 | 98.05 | 98.23 | 99.41 | 99.54 | |
| Model size (Mb) | 19.2 | 21.6 | 98.5 | 112.6 | 24.2 |
| Iteration time (s) | 442 | 557 | 1259 | 1576 | 403 |
Confusion matrix for the experimental results of lightweight network.
| T62 | T72 | BRDM-2 | BTR-60 | 2S1 | ZSU-234 | ZIL-131 | D7 | SLICY |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T62 | 272 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 99.64 |
| T72 | 0 | 275 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| BRDM-2 | 0 | 2 | 271 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 98.90 |
| BTR-60 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 193 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 98.97 |
| 2S1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 273 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 99.64 |
| ZSU-234 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 274 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| ZIL-131 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 273 | 0 | 0 | 99.64 |
| D7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 273 | 0 | 99.64 |
| SLICY | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 272 | 99.27 |
| Total | 99.54 |
Figure 7SAR images with different intensities of noise.
Figure 8Recognition accuracy of different noise intensities.
Recognition accuracy of 5 × 5 and 7 × 7 kernel size.
| Noise Intensity Kernel Size | 1% | 5% | 10% | 15% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 × 5 | 0.9333 | 0.8921 | 0.8133 | 0.6928 |
| 7 × 7 | 0.9714 | 0.9326 | 0.8835 | 0.8019 |
Setting of experimental conditions on OpenSARShip dataset.
| Over-Sampling | Under-Sampling | Cross Entropy Loss | WDM Loss | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group 1 (baseline) | × | × | √ | × |
| Group 2 | √ | × | √ | × |
| Group 3 | √ | √ | √ | × |
| Group 4 | × | × | × | √ |
| Group 5 | √ | √ | × | √ |
Experimental results of group 1 (baseline, same as Table 5).
| Cargo | Tanker | Tug | Other |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cargo | 638 | 31 | 38 | 3 | 0.90 |
| Tanker | 41 | 36 | 9 | 17 | 0.35 |
| Tug | 12 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0.17 |
| Other | 34 | 10 | 2 | 20 | 0.30 |
| Total | 0.78 |
Experimental results of group 2.
| Cargo | Tanker | Tug | Other |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cargo | 635 | 31 | 41 | 3 | 0.89 |
| Tanker | 38 | 39 | 9 | 17 | 0.38 |
| Tug | 12 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0.17 |
| Other | 33 | 7 | 2 | 24 | 0.36 |
| Total | 0.78 |
Experimental results of group 3.
| Cargo | Tanker | Tug | Other |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cargo | 632 | 34 | 41 | 3 | 0.89 |
| Tanker | 30 | 51 | 7 | 15 | 0.50 |
| Tug | 11 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 0.22 |
| Other | 30 | 6 | 2 | 28 | 0.42 |
| Total | 0.80 |
Experimental results of group 4.
| Cargo | Tanker | Tug | Other |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cargo | 630 | 35 | 41 | 4 | 0.89 |
| Tanker | 22 | 69 | 5 | 7 | 0.67 |
| Tug | 5 | 0 | 10 | 3 | 0.56 |
| Other | 19 | 6 | 2 | 39 | 0.59 |
| Total | 0.83 |
Experimental results of group 5.
| Cargo | Tanker | Tug | Other |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cargo | 632 | 36 | 39 | 3 | 0.89 |
| Tanker | 20 | 72 | 5 | 6 | 0.70 |
| Tug | 5 | 0 | 10 | 3 | 0.56 |
| Other | 18 | 5 | 2 | 41 | 0.62 |
| Total | 0.84 |
Figure 9Result statistics of ablation experiments.
Experimental results of different value of .
| Reduction Ratio | Accuracy (%) | Model Size (Mb) |
|---|---|---|
| 4 | 99.58 | 31.6 |
| 8 | 99.54 | 24.2 |
| 16 | 99.16 | 21.9 |
| 32 | 98.08 | 18.5 |
Recognition accuracy () of samples under different values of m.
| Cargo | Tanker | Tug | Other | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.87 | 0.65 | 0.50 | 0.56 | 0.81 |
|
| 0.88 | 0.65 | 0.50 | 0.58 | 0.82 |
|
| 0.89 | 0.67 | 0.56 | 0.59 | 0.83 |
|
| 0.89 | 0.66 | 0.56 | 0.59 | 0.83 |
|
| 0.88 | 0.65 | 0.50 | 0.58 | 0.82 |
Experimental results of different value of t.
| Expansion Factor | Accuracy (%) | Model Size (Mb) |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | 95.62 | 17.6 |
| 4 | 96.37 | 21.5 |
| 6 | 99.53 | 24.2 |
| 10 | 99.56 | 31.1 |