| Literature DB >> 33200063 |
Mohamed Loey1, Gunasekaran Manogaran2,3, Mohamed Hamed N Taha4, Nour Eldeen M Khalifa4.
Abstract
Deep learning has shown tremendous potential in many real-life applications in different domains. One of these potentials is object detection. Recent object detection which is based on deep learning models has achieved promising results concerning the finding of an object in images. The objective of this paper is to annotate and localize the medical face mask objects in real-life images. Wearing a medical face mask in public areas, protect people from COVID-19 transmission among them. The proposed model consists of two components. The first component is designed for the feature extraction process based on the ResNet-50 deep transfer learning model. While the second component is designed for the detection of medical face masks based on YOLO v2. Two medical face masks datasets have been combined in one dataset to be investigated through this research. To improve the object detection process, mean IoU has been used to estimate the best number of anchor boxes. The achieved results concluded that the adam optimizer achieved the highest average precision percentage of 81% as a detector. Finally, a comparative result with related work has been presented at the end of the research. The proposed detector achieved higher accuracy and precision than the related work.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Deep learning; Medical masked face; ResNet; YOLO
Year: 2020 PMID: 33200063 PMCID: PMC7658565 DOI: 10.1016/j.scs.2020.102600
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sustain Cities Soc ISSN: 2210-6707 Impact factor: 7.587
Fig. 1The outcome of the proposed masked face detector.
Fig. 2Samples of MMD dataset.
Fig. 3Samples of FMD dataset images.
Fig. 4The proposed detector model.
Fig. 5Visualize the labeled boxes of Medical Masked faces images.
Fig. 6Mean IoU of number of anchors for Medical Masked faces images.
Fig. 7Sample of data augmentation in Medical Masked faces images.
Fig. 8Proposed detector based on YOLO v2 with ResNet-50.
Configuration of the proposed Detector model.
| Model | Batch size | Epoch | Learning Rate | Optimizer |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Detector | 64 | 60 | 0.001 | sgdm |
| 64 | 60 | 0.001 | adam |
The training and validation process based on SGDM.
| Epoch | Iteration | Time Elapsed | Mini-batch (RMSE) | Validation (RMSE) | Mini-batch Loss | Validation Loss |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | 150 | 0:15:03 | 0.90 | 0.88 | 0.8187 | 0.7818 |
| 20 | 300 | 0:30:18 | 0.74 | 0.82 | 0.5484 | 0.6661 |
| 30 | 450 | 0:45:11 | 0.65 | 0.79 | 0.4240 | 0.6229 |
| 40 | 600 | 1:00:12 | 0.63 | 0.77 | 0.3967 | 0.5908 |
| 50 | 750 | 1:14:58 | 0.56 | 0.78 | 0.3083 | 0.6051 |
| 60 | 900 | 1:29:41 | 0.53 | 0.78 | 0.2808 | 0.6066 |
The training and validation process based on Adam.
| Epoch | Iteration | Time Elapsed | Mini-batch (RMSE) | Validation (RMSE) | Mini-batch Loss | Validation Loss |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | 150 | 00:15:07 | 0.60 | 0.70 | 0.3584 | 0.4918 |
| 20 | 300 | 00:30:05 | 0.53 | 0.71 | 0.2817 | 0.4989 |
| 30 | 450 | 00:45:11 | 0.48 | 0.72 | 0.2265 | 0.5223 |
| 40 | 600 | 01:00:35 | 0.46 | 0.71 | 0.2147 | 0.5046 |
| 50 | 750 | 01:15:53 | 0.43 | 0.72 | 0.1878 | 0.5214 |
| 60 | 900 | 01:31:06 | 0.38 | 0.81 | 0.1416 | 0.6573 |
Fig. 9Detector average precision and log-average miss rates based on SGDM.
Fig. 10Detector average precision and log-average miss rates based on Adam.
Fig. 11Representative detector outcomes of our YOLO v2 with ResNet-50 model.
Performance comparison of different methods in term of Accuracy (AC), and Average Precision (AP).
| Reference | Methodology | Classification | Detection | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | PCA | Yes | No | AC = 70% |
| ( | GAN | Yes | Yes | — |
| ( | hybrid | Yes | No | AC = 99.64% |
| ( | LLE-CNNs | Yes | Yes | AP = 76.1% |
| YOLOv2 with ResNet | Yes | Yes | AP = 81% |