| Literature DB >> 35062379 |
Youchen Fan1, Shuya Zhang2, Kai Feng2, Kechang Qian1, Yitong Wang2, Shangzhi Qin2.
Abstract
Aiming at the problems of low accuracy of strawberry fruit picking and large rate of mispicking or missed picking, YOLOv5 combined with dark channel enhancement is proposed. In "Fengxiang" strawberry, the criterion of "bad fruit" is added to the conventional three criteria of ripeness, near-ripeness, and immaturity, because some of the bad fruits are close to the color of ripe fruits, but the fruits are small and dry. The training accuracy of the four kinds of strawberries with different ripeness is above 85%, and the testing accuracy is above 90%. Then, to meet the demand of all-day picking and address the problem of low illumination of images collected at night, an enhancement algorithm is proposed to enhance the images, which are recognized. We compare the actual detection results of the five enhancement algorithms, i.e., histogram equalization, Laplace transform, gamma transform, logarithmic variation, and dark channel enhancement processing under the different numbers of fruits, periods, and video tests. The results show that combined with dark channel enhancement, YOLOv5 has the highest recognition rate. Finally, the experimental results demonstrate that YOLOv5 is better than SSD, DSSD, and EfficientDet in terms of recognition accuracy, and the correct rate can reach more than 90%. Meanwhile, the method has good robustness in complex environments such as partial occlusion and multiple fruits.Entities:
Keywords: all-day picking; bad fruit; dark channel de-fogging; strawberry ripeness
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35062379 PMCID: PMC8777991 DOI: 10.3390/s22020419
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Network structure of YOLOv5.
YOLOv5’s four network structure differences.
| Network Structure | Number of Residual Components (pcs) | Number of Convolution Kernels (pcs) |
|---|---|---|
| YOLOv5s | 12 | 1001 |
| YOLOv5m | 24 | 1488 |
| YOLOv5l | 36 | 1984 |
| YOLOv5x | 48 | 2180 |
Figure 2Original dataset of strawberry.
Configuration of hardware and software.
| Hardware or Software | Technical Parameter |
|---|---|
| operating system | Window 10 × 64 Home |
| GPU | NVIDIAGeForceRTX-3090 |
| CPU | Intel(R)Xeon(R)Silver4116 |
| memory | 32 GB |
| deep learning library | TensorFlow |
| marking software | Labelimg |
| programming language | Python |
Figure 3YOLOv5 training results.
Figure 4Enhanced image effect. (a) Histogram equalization; (b) Laplace transform; (c) Gamma transform; (d) Log transform; (e) Dark channel enhancement.
Comparison of enhancement effects.
| Adaptive | Laplace | Gamma | Log | Dark Channel | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.65 | 0.63 | 0.28 | 0.23 | 0.85 |
|
| 16 | 29 | 21 | 7 | 26 |
|
| 0.07 | 0.003 | 0.04 | 0.007 | 0.06 |
|
| 3960 | 82 | 1408 | 34,109 | 425 |
Test results for different YOLOv5 models.
| Network Structure | YOLOv5s | YOLOv5m | YOLOv5l | YOLOv5x |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time/s | 0.1423 | 0.1439 | 0.1472 | 0.1527 |
| Recognition accuracy | 0.81 | 0.91 | 0.83 | 0.85 |
Figure 5YOLOv5 strawberry maturity test renderings.
Test results of strawberries of different maturity categories.
| Classification of | 1 (Unripe) | 2 (Almost Ripe) | 3 (Ripe) | 4 (Bad Fruit) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recognition Accuracy | 0.92 | 0.90 | 0.90 | 0.91 |
Recognition accuracy results.
| Classification of | 1 (Unripe) | 2 (Almost Ripe) | 3 (Ripe) | 4 (Bad Fruit) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SSD | 0.62 | 0.66 | 0.80 | 0.71 |
| DSSD | 0.72 | 0.73 | 0.83 | 0.76 |
| EfficientDet | 0.70 | 0.78 | 0.81 | 0.75 |
Dark channel enhancement effect test in YOLOv5.
| Classification of | 1 (Unripe) | 2 (Almost Ripe) | 3 (Ripe) | 4 (Bad Fruit) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy before | 0.81 | 0.68 | 0.68 | 0.70 |
| Accuracy after Enhancement | 0.88 | 0.82 | 0.84 | 0.80 |
Figure 6Comparison of the test results. (a) Test results for unenhanced images; (b) Test results of the enhanced image.
Figure 7Comparison of test results before and after enhancement. (a) Test results for unenhanced images; (b) Test results of the enhanced image.