| Literature DB >> 32365652 |
Jian He1,2, Yongfei Guo1, Hangfei Yuan1.
Abstract
Efficient ship detection is essential to the strategies of commerce and military. However, traditional ship detection methods have low detection efficiency and poor reliability due to uncertain conditions of the sea surface, such as the atmosphere, illumination, clouds and islands. Hence, in this study, a novel ship target automatic detection system based on a modified hypercomplex Flourier transform (MHFT) saliency model is proposed for spatial resolution of remote-sensing images. The method first utilizes visual saliency theory to effectively suppress sea surface interference. Then we use OTSU methods to extract regions of interest. After obtaining the candidate ship target regions, we get the candidate target using a method of ship target recognition based on ResNet framework. This method has better accuracy and better performance for the recognition of ship targets than other methods. The experimental results show that the proposed method not only accurately and effectively recognizes ship targets, but also is suitable for spatial resolution of remote-sensing images with complex backgrounds.Entities:
Keywords: HFT; ResNet; remote sensing; saliency model; ship detection
Year: 2020 PMID: 32365652 PMCID: PMC7249091 DOI: 10.3390/s20092536
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Comparison of several saliency detection method: (a) original images; (b) ITTI; (c) graph-based visual saliency (GBVS); (d) spectral residual (SR); (e) histogram contrast (HC); (f) Principal Component Analysis (PCA); (g) phase quaternion Fourier transform (PQFT); (h) hypercomplex Flourier transform (HFT); (i) proposed method.
Comparison of related numerical indicators for different methods.
| Method | Precision | Recall | F-measure | Acc |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ITTI | 80.72% | 42.17% | 55.40% | 54.17% |
| GBVS | 74.14% | 38.45% | 50.64% | 50.36% |
| SR | 83.25% | 43.59% | 57.56% | 59.38% |
| HC | 80.46% | 59.14% | 68.17% | 71.42% |
| PCA | 77.42% | 44.15% | 56.23% | 52.47% |
| PQFT | 84.12% | 55.34% | 66.76% | 68.17% |
| HFT | 85.58% | 68.49% | 76.09% | 73.45% |
| Ours | 91.42% | 72.47% | 80.85% | 82.36% |
Figure 2Precision–recall curves.
Figure 3Ship area extraction results.
Figure 4Residual principle.
Figure 5ResNet for transferring.
Figure 6Transferring learning.
Figure 7Samples of our dataset: (a) land, (b) marine, (c) cargo ship, (d) steamer, (e) warship.
Partial training parameters.
| Sample Data | Learning Rate | Decay | Steps | Momentum | Batch Size |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CIFAR-10 | 0.001 | 0.0001 | 120,000 | 0.9 | 128 |
| Ship dataset | 0.0001 | 0.0001 | 52,000 | 0.9 | 128 |
TPR, FPR of our method and competing methods.
| Method | TPR | FPR |
|---|---|---|
| HOG + SVM | 89.86% | 70.60% |
| AlexNet | 91.81% | 25.40% |
| VGG16 | 95.77% | 19.60% |
| GoogleNet | 97.75% | 14.20% |
| Our model | 98.45% | 11.40% |
Figure 8ROC curve.
Comparison of related numerical indicators for different methods.
| Method | Precision | Recall | F-Measure |
|---|---|---|---|
| HOG + SVM | 64.38% | 89.86% | 75.02% |
| AlexNet | 83.70% | 91.81% | 87.57% |
| VGG16 | 87.40% | 95.77% | 91.39% |
| GoogleNet | 90.72% | 97.75% | 94.10% |
| Our model | 92.46% | 98.45% | 95.36% |
Figure 9Precision–recall curves for recognition model.
Running times of each stage.
| Method | Saliency Detection(s) | Recognition Model(s) |
|---|---|---|
| Literature [ | 0.253 | 0.835 |
| Proposed method | 0.237 | 0.047 |