| Literature DB >> 33255997 |
Mohammed Raju Ahmed1, Jannat Yasmin1, Eunsung Park1, Geonwoo Kim2, Moon S Kim2, Collins Wakholi1, Changyeun Mo3, Byoung-Kwan Cho1,4.
Abstract
In this study, conventional machine learning and deep leaning approaches were evaluated using X-ray imaging techniques for investigating the internal parameters (endosperm and air space) of three cultivars of watermelon seed. In the conventional machine learning, six types of image features were extracted after applying different types of image preprocessing, such as image intensity and contrast enhancement, and noise reduction. The sequential forward selection (SFS) method and Fisher objective function were used as the search strategy and feature optimization. Three classifiers were tested (linear discriminant analysis (LDA), quadratic discriminant analysis (QDA), and k-nearest neighbors algorithm (KNN)) to find the best performer. On the other hand, in the transfer learning (deep learning) approaches, simple ConvNet, AlexNet, VGG-19, ResNet-50, and ResNet-101 were used to train the dataset and class prediction of the seed. For the supervised model development (both conventional machine learning and deep learning), the germination test results of the samples were used where the seeds were divided into two classes: (1) normal viable seeds and (2) nonviable and abnormal viable seeds. In the conventional classification, 83.6% accuracy was obtained by LDA using 48 features. ResNet-50 performed better than other transfer learning architectures, with an 87.3% accuracy which was the highest accuracy in all classification models. The findings of this study manifested that transfer learning is a constructive strategy for classifying seeds by analyzing their morphology, where X-ray imaging can be adopted as a potential imaging technique.Entities:
Keywords: X-ray imaging; image analysis; nondestructive measurement; seed quality; transfer learning; watermelon
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33255997 PMCID: PMC7731397 DOI: 10.3390/s20236753
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Basic components of a dicot seed (watermelon). (a) external view and (b) internal view of seed; (c) illustration of major parts of seed.
Figure 2Illustration of the working procedure to develop the classification model for watermelon seed quality based on their morphological patterns.
Image acquisition parameters for X-ray projection imaging.
| Parameters | Values |
|---|---|
| System | Xeye-5100F |
| Source voltage | 50 kV |
| Source current | 100 μA |
| Exposure time | 0.05 s |
| Magnification | 18× |
| Filter | Glass effect |
Figure 3A ConvNets sequence to classify seeds into 2 classes.
Figure 4A custom-built software for classification (a) and prediction (b) of seed based on their morphology using X-ray imaging where green circles with number show the sequence of the operations.
Figure 5Types of seed found in germination test.
Germination test result of the seed samples.
| Cultivars | Viable Seed | Nonviable Seed | Total | Germination Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leehyunglim | 72 | 528 | 600 | 12% |
| Sambaechea | 116 | 484 | 600 | 19% |
| Choiganggul | 453 | 147 | 600 | 76% |
| Overall | 641 | 1159 | 1800 | 36% |
Conventional machine learning performance.
| Region of Interest (ROI) | Classifier | 2-Classes Performance (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | UCI a | LCI b | ||
| Whole seed | LDA | 83.6 | 86.1 | 81.1 |
| QDA | 80.8 | 84.4 | 77.2 | |
| KNN (K = 5) | 63.7 | 72.6 | 54.9 | |
a Upper confidence interval (UCI); b Lower confidence interval (LCI). LDA: linear discriminant analysis; QDA: quadratic discriminant analysis; KNN: k-nearest neighbors algorithm.
Figure 6The performance of LDA classifier with the feature number.
The selected features used by LDA classifier applying the sequential forward selection (SFS) method and the Fisher score objective function.
| Number | Features Name | Number | Features Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | i-Gabor(1,1)[Max-A] | 25 | i-LBP(2,2)[8,u2][sd-C] |
| 2 | i-LBP(3,34)[8,u2][sd-C] | 26 | i-LBP(2,26)[8,u2][sd-A] |
| 3 | i-LBP(2,53)[8,u2][sd-B] | 27 | i-LBP(2,29)[8,u2][Max-B] |
| 4 | Fourier Ang (2,1)[rad][Max-C] | 28 | i-LBP(1,36)[8,u2][sd-C] |
| 5 | i-LBP(3,44)[8,u2][sd-A] | 29 | i-LBP(4,42)[8,u2][sd-A] |
| 6 | Fourier Abs (1,1)[Max-C] | 30 | i-LBP(3,51)[8,u2][sd-C] |
| 7 | i-Gabor-J[sd-A] | 31 | i-LBP(2,6)[8,u2][sd-A] |
| 8 | i-LBP(3,27)[8,u2][sd-A] | 32 | i-Intensity Skewness[Max-C] |
| 9 | i-LBP(3,58)[8,u2][Max-A] | 33 | i-LBP(3,2)[8,u2][sd-C] |
| 10 | i-LBP(1,10)[8,u2][Max-C] | 34 | i-LBP(3,41)[8,u2][Max-C] |
| 11 | i-LBP(4,57)[8,u2][sd-C] | 35 | i-LBP(1,57)[8,u2][Max-A] |
| 12 | i-LBP(3,56)[8,u2][Max-C] | 36 | i-LBP(1,5)[8,u2][Max-A] |
| 13 | i-LBP(1,52)[8,u2][sd-C] | 37 | i-LBP(1,30)[8,u2][sd-B] |
| 14 | i-LBP(1,38)[8,u2][sd-A] | 38 | i-LBP(1,51)[8,u2][Max-A] |
| 15 | i-LBP(1,46)[8,u2][sd-C] | 39 | i-LBP(2,57)[8,u2][Max-B] |
| 16 | i-LBP(3,12)[8,u2][sd-C] | 40 | Fourier Ang (2,2)[rad][Max-C] |
| 17 | i-LBP(3,2)[8,u2][Max-A] | 41 | i-LBP(3,15)[8,u2][Max-A] |
| 18 | i-LBP(2,30)[8,u2][sd-A] | 42 | i-LBP(1,37)[8,u2][sd-A] |
| 19 | i-LBP(2,46)[8,u2][sd-A] | 43 | i-LBP(1,50)[8,u2][sd-B] |
| 20 | i-LBP(4,13)[8,u2][sd-B] | 44 | i-LBP(4,21)[8,u2][sd-C] |
| 21 | i-LBP(2,20)[8,u2][sd-B] | 45 | i-LBP(2,35)[8,u2][sd-A] |
| 22 | i-LBP(2,20)[8,u2][sd-A] | 46 | i-LBP(1,8)[8,u2][Max-C] |
| 23 | i-LBP(2,48)[8,u2][sd-C] | 47 | i-LBP(3,34)[8,u2][sd-B] |
| 24 | i-LBP(1,29)[8,u2][sd-B] | 48 | i-LBP(3,7)[8,u2][sd-B] |
i-LBP(d,h): local binary patterns. Where d is the number of compared pixels with h—neighboring pixels. i-Gabor(a,b): Gabor filters, where a is the frequency number, and b is the number of orientations. Fourier Ang (FFT) (u0,T0)-(Abs, Rad): Fourier-Based textural features, where u0 is the frequency number, and T0 is the period. The information in the last brackets [] are the different quality enhanced images used for extracting features.
Classification performance of simple ConvNet, AlexNet, VGG-19, ResNet-50, and ResNet-101 architectures for seed quality inspection based on morphology. The validation accuracy was obtained by using 10-fold cross-validation.
| Network Architecture | Classification Accuracy | |
|---|---|---|
| Validation Accuracy (%) | Test Accuracy (%) | |
| Simple ConvNets | 88.7 | 84.5 |
| AlexNet | 92.1 | 86.4 |
| VGG-19 | 91.2 | 86.9 |
| ResNet-50 | 92.5 | 87.3 |
| ResNet-101 | 91.9 | 86.6 |
Figure 7Randomly selected prediction class of the samples using ResNet50.
Figure 8Morphological difference in normal viable and nonviable and abnormal viable seed in 3 watermelon seed cultivars. Ehiongrim and Samveshay cultivars showed distinct morphological difference than Suyegangkul. Seeds contained good shaped internal structures and produced healthy seedlings from all cultivars shown in (a,c,e). Poor internal structure seeds failed to germinate (b,f) or produce abnormal seedlings (d) (no proper root and shoot, mark with red dotted circle).