| Literature DB >> 36015908 |
Lihua Li1,2,3, Mengzui Di1, Hao Xue1, Zixuan Zhou1, Ziqi Wang1.
Abstract
In order to reduce the influence of redundant features on the performance of the model in the process of accelerometer behavior recognition, and to improve the recognition accuracy of the model, this paper proposes an improved Whale Optimization algorithm with mixed strategy (IWOA) combined with the extreme gradient boosting algorithm (XGBoost) as a preferred method for chicken behavior identification features. A nine-axis inertial sensor was used to obtain the chicken behavior data. After noise reduction, the sliding window was used to extract 44 dimensional features in the time domain and frequency domain. To improve the search ability of the Whale Optimization algorithm for optimal solutions, the introduction of the good point set improves population diversity and expands the search range; the introduction of adaptive weight balances the search ability of the optimal solution in the early and late stages; the introduction of dimension-by-dimension lens imaging learning based on the adaptive weight factor perturbs the optimal solution and enhances the ability to jump out of the local optimal solution. This method's effectiveness was verified by recognizing cage breeders' feeding and drinking behaviors. The results show that the number of feature dimensions is reduced by 72.73%. At the same time, the behavior recognition accuracy is increased by 2.41% compared with the original behavior feature dataset, which is 95.58%. Compared with other dimensionality reduction methods, the IWOA-XGBoost model proposed in this paper has the highest recognition accuracy. The dimension reduction results have a certain degree of universality for different classification algorithms. This provides a method for behavior recognition based on acceleration sensor data.Entities:
Keywords: IWOA–XGBoost; acceleration sensor; behavior recognition; breeding chickens; feature optimization
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36015908 PMCID: PMC9413597 DOI: 10.3390/s22166147
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1An actual picture of this cage experiment.
Figure 2Sensor wearing mode.
Figure 3Sensor and adapter.
Figure 4Feature selection and recognition models.
Figure 5Population initialization. (a) The good point set method randomly generated 100 points; (b) the random method generated 100 points.
Figure 6Adaptive weight factor change curve.
Figure 7Lens learning strategy.
Figure 8Algorithm flow chart.
Figure 9Noise reduction curve of chicken behavior. (a) Results of the resultant acceleration noise reduction of eating behavior; (b) results of denoising of the combined angular velocity for eating behavior; (c) results of the acceleration noise reduction of drinking behavior; (d) results of denoising of the combined angular velocity for drinking behavior.
Comparison of the WOA–XGBoost and IWOA–XGBoost algorithms.
| Method | Distribution | Accuracy % | Fitness Value | Convergent Algebra | Feature Size |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IWOA–XGBoost | max | 95.58 | 0.0583 | 16 | 24 |
| min | 94.44 | 0.0465 | 2 | 9 | |
| ave | 94.86 | 0.0539 | 7.15 | 13 | |
| WOA–XGBoost | max | 94.94 | 0.063 | 25 | 34 |
| min | 93.93 | 0.056 | 4 | 10 | |
| ave | 94.35 | 0.060 | 11.65 | 17.9 |
Figure 10Comparison of the WOA–XGBoost and IWOA–XGBoost algorithms run 20 times.
Results of chicken behavior recognition before and after feature selection.
| Method | Ture Behavior | Predicted Behavior | Total | Precision % | Recall % | F1 Score % | Accuracy % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eating | Drinking | |||||||
| IWOA–XGBoost | Eating | 458 | 21 | 479 | 97.03 | 95.62 | 96.32 | 95.58 |
| Drinking | 14 | 298 | 312 | 93.42 | 95.51 | 94.45 | 95.58 | |
| total | 472 | 319 | 791 | 95.23 | 95.57 | 95.39 | 95.58 | |
| XGBoost | Eating | 454 | 25 | 479 | 94.00 | 94.78 | 94.39 | 93.17 |
| Drinking | 29 | 283 | 312 | 91.88 | 90.71 | 91.29 | 93.17 | |
| Total | 483 | 308 | 791 | 92.94 | 92.75 | 92.84 | 93.17 | |
Figure 11Kendall coefficient matrix.
Figure 12MIC coefficient matrix.
Figure 13Feature importance measure F-score value.
Figure 14Comparison of dimensionality reduction results of different algorithms.
Comparison of the recognition results of four classification algorithms.
| Before Feature Optimization | After Feature Optimization | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | Behavior | Precision | Recall | F1-Score | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1-Score | Accuracy |
| Logistic | eating | 94.21 | 95.2 | 94.7 | 93.35 | 95.00 | 95.2 | 95.1 | 94.06 |
| drinking | 92.51 | 91.03 | 91.76 | 92.60 | 92.31 | 92.46 | |||
| Decision | eating | 91.24 | 93.53 | 92.37 | 90.64 | 94.42 | 91.86 | 93.12 | 91.78 |
| drinking | 89.67 | 86.22 | 87.91 | 88.00 | 91.67 | 89.80 | |||
| GaussianNB | eating | 94.69 | 93.11 | 93.89 | 92.67 | 94.58 | 94.78 | 94.68 | 93.55 |
| drinking | 89.69 | 91.99 | 90.82 | 91.96 | 91.67 | 91.81 | |||
| LightGBM | eating | 95.38 | 94.78 | 95.08 | 94.06 | 95.82 | 95.62 | 95.72 | 94.82 |
| drinking | 92.06 | 92.95 | 92.5 | 93.29 | 93.59 | 93.44 | |||