| Literature DB >> 35424797 |
Zengwei Zheng1,2, Yi Liu3, Mengzhu He1,2, Dan Chen1,2, Lin Sun1,2, Fengle Zhu4.
Abstract
The selection of effective and representative spectral bands is extremely important in eliminating redundant information and reducing the computational burden for the potential real-time applications of hyperspectral imaging. However, current band selection methods act as a separate procedure before model training and are implemented merely based on extracted average spectra without incorporating spatial information. In this paper, an end-to-end trainable network framework that combines band selection, feature extraction, and model training was proposed based on a 3D CNN (convolutional neural network, CNN) with the attention mechanism embedded in its first layer. The learned band attention vector was adopted as the basis of a band importance indicator to select effective bands. The proposed network was evaluated by two datasets, a regression dataset for predicting the relative chlorophyll content (soil and plant analyzer development, SPAD) of basil leaves and a classification dataset for detecting the drought stress of pepper leaves. A number of calibration models, including SVM, 1D-CNN, 2B-CNN (two-branch CNN), 3D ResNet and the developed network were established for performance comparison. Results showed that the effective bands selected by the proposed attention-based model achieved higher regression R 2 values and classification accuracies not only than the full-spectrum data, but also than the comparative band selection methods, including traditional SPA (successive projections algorithm) and GA (genetic algorithm) methods and the latest 2B-CNN algorithm. In addition, different from the traditional methods, the proposed band selection algorithm can effectively select bands while carrying out model training and can simultaneously take advantage of the original spectral-spatial information. The results confirmed the usefulness of the proposed attention mechanism-based convolutional network for selecting the most effective band combination of hyperspectral images. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35424797 PMCID: PMC8985171 DOI: 10.1039/d1ra07662k
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 3.361
Fig. 1Illustration of the hyperspectral image acquisition procedure in this study.
Fig. 2A representative image of basil leaf before (a) and after (b) image preprocessing.
Fig. 3Overall architecture of the proposed model with attention mechanism in its first layer.
Fig. 4Implementation details of the 3D ResNet section in the proposed model.
Fig. 5Implementation details of the attention-based band selection module.
Prediction results of the attention-based 3D ResNet and the comparison models on full-spectrum data
| Dataset | Metric | SVM | 1D-CNN | 2B-CNN | 3D ResNet | Proposed model |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Basil | RMSE | 2.890 | 5.552 | 4.458 | 2.420 | 2.379 |
|
| 0.825 | 0.354 | 0.583 | 0.878 | 0.881 | |
| Pepper | Accuracy (%) | 56.79 | 57.38 | 60.00 | 71.11 | 73.89 |
| Precision (%) | 55.65 | 56.19 | 59.44 | 63.91 | 77.63 | |
| Sensitivity (%) | 62.31 | 68.14 | 66.06 | 95.51 | 66.29 |
Fig. 6The obtained band importance indicators using the attention mechanism-based network.
Fig. 7Effective bands of basil leaf dataset (a) and pepper leaf dataset (b) identified by attention-based band selection model.
Comparison on the performance of the original full spectral bands and the corresponding effective band subset obtained by the band attention module
| Dataset | Metric | SVM | 1D-CNN | 2B-CNN | 3D ResNet | Proposed model | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full | Subset | Full | Subset | Full | Subset | Full | Subset | Full | Subset | ||
| Basil | RMSE | 2.890 | 2.600 | 5.552 | 5.206 | 4.458 | 3.499 | 2.420 | 2.133 | 2.379 | 2.046 |
|
| 0.825 |
| 0.354 |
| 0.583 |
| 0.878 |
| 0.881 |
| |
| Pepper | Accuracy (%) | 56.79 |
| 57.38 |
| 60.00 |
| 71.11 |
| 73.89 |
|
| Precision (%) | 55.65 | 60.56 | 56.19 | 59.76 | 59.44 | 61.82 | 63.91 | 71.17 | 77.63 | 73.17 | |
| Sensitivity (%) | 62.31 | 61.22 | 68.14 | 68.26 | 66.06 | 70.23 | 95.51 | 88.76 | 66.29 | 85.31 | |
Band subsets of basil leaf and pepper leaf datasets obtained by different methods
| Dataset | Method | Selected subset (labelled bands from 0 to 139) | Corresponding wavelengths (nm) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Basil | SPA | 1, 4, 10, 11, 15, 36, 46, 47, 52, 59, 67, 115, 129 | 471, 483, 501, 505, 519, 591, 629, 632, 647, 667, 694, 839, 876 |
| GA | 5, 25, 28, 38, 45, 55, 59, 68, 85, 96, 121, 129, 137 | 486, 553, 563, 596, 625, 656, 667, 697, 750, 785, 854, 876, 896 | |
| 2B-CNN | 1, 9, 10, 27, 59, 64, 69, 77, 85, 92, 106, 111, 139 | 471, 500, 501, 559, 667, 684, 700, 726, 750, 774, 814, 828, 902 | |
| Proposed | 5, 6, 8, 25, 30, 45, 58, 73, 78, 82, 89, 111, 116 | 486, 489, 496, 553, 569, 625, 665, 713, 728, 741, 764, 828, 841 | |
| Pepper | SPA | 0, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, 26, 47, 58, 65, 74, 129 | 468, 476, 479, 483, 489, 500, 508, 556, 632, 665, 688, 716, 876 |
| GA | 12, 33, 41, 50, 51, 56, 65, 75, 85, 91, 104, 110, 114 | 508, 580, 606, 641, 643, 659, 688, 719, 750, 771, 808, 825, 836 | |
| 2B-CNN | 14, 18, 34, 47, 74, 75, 91, 95, 96, 104, 116, 123, 127 | 515, 531, 583, 632, 716, 719, 771, 783, 785, 808, 841, 859, 871 | |
| Proposed | 0, 2, 6, 10, 19, 31, 58, 59, 65, 70, 79, 94, 114 | 468, 476, 489, 501, 534, 573, 665, 667, 688, 703, 732, 780, 836 |
Comparison on the performance of multiple models trained on the selected band subset obtained by band attention method and other selection methods
| Models | Band selection methods | Basil leaf dataset | Pepper leaf dataset | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RMSE |
| Accuracy (%) | Precision (%) | Sensitivity (%) | ||
| SVM | SPA | 2.829 | 0.832 | 56.61 | 55.60 | 59.89 |
| GA | 2.792 | 0.837 | 57.38 | 58.49 | 60.32 | |
| 2B-CNN | 2.698 | 0.847 | 59.76 | 57.38 | 65.53 | |
| Proposed | 2.600 |
|
| 60.56 | 61.22 | |
| 1D-CNN | SPA | 5.470 | 0.373 | 58.57 | 57.38 | 64.13 |
| GA | 5.423 | 0.383 | 59.17 | 58.57 | 60.49 | |
| 2B-CNN | 5.319 | 0.407 | 60.36 | 57.98 | 77.16 | |
| Proposed | 5.206 |
|
| 59.76 | 68.26 | |
| 2B-CNN | SPA | 4.399 | 0.594 | 61.11 | 65.93 | 65.64 |
| GA | 4.241 | 0.623 | 63.32 | 59.67 | 77.95 | |
| 2B-CNN | 3.575 | 0.732 | 64.45 | 61.67 | 72.31 | |
| Proposed | 3.499 |
|
| 61.82 | 70.23 | |
| 3D ResNet | SPA | 2.582 | 0.860 | 71.67 | 69.39 | 76.40 |
| GA | 2.315 | 0.887 | 72.78 | 67.24 | 87.64 | |
| 2B-CNN | 2.308 | 0.888 | 73.33 | 65.17 | 77.33 | |
| Proposed | 2.133 |
|
| 71.17 | 88.76 | |
| Proposed model | SPA | 2.314 | 0.887 | 74.22 | 73.21 | 76.91 |
| GA | 2.343 | 0.885 | 75.00 | 68.97 | 89.89 | |
| 2B-CNN | 2.217 | 0.897 | 76.11 | 77.38 | 73.03 | |
| Proposed | 2.046 |
|
| 73.17 | 85.31 | |
Fig. 8Prediction results obtained by different models trained on the effective bands selected by different band selection methods. (a) Basil leaf dataset for regression analysis. (b) Pepper leaf dataset for classification analysis.