| Literature DB >> 36033781 |
Nur Athirah Zailan1, Muhammad Mokhzaini Azizan2, Khairunnisa Hasikin3,4, Anis Salwa Mohd Khairuddin1,4, Uswah Khairuddin5.
Abstract
Due to urbanization, solid waste pollution is an increasing concern for rivers, possibly threatening human health, ecological integrity, and ecosystem services. Riverine management in urban landscapes requires best management practices since the river is a vital component in urban ecological civilization, and it is very imperative to synchronize the connection between urban development and river protection. Thus, the implementation of proper and innovative measures is vital to control garbage pollution in the rivers. A robot that cleans the waste autonomously can be a good solution to manage river pollution efficiently. Identifying and obtaining precise positions of garbage are the most crucial parts of the visual system for a cleaning robot. Computer vision has paved a way for computers to understand and interpret the surrounding objects. The development of an accurate computer vision system is a vital step toward a robotic platform since this is the front-end observation system before consequent manipulation and grasping systems. The scope of this work is to acquire visual information about floating garbage on the river, which is vital in building a robotic platform for river cleaning robots. In this paper, an automated detection system based on the improved You Only Look Once (YOLO) model is developed to detect floating garbage under various conditions, such as fluctuating illumination, complex background, and occlusion. The proposed object detection model has been shown to promote rapid convergence which improves the training time duration. In addition, the proposed object detection model has been shown to improve detection accuracy by strengthening the non-linear feature extraction process. The results showed that the proposed model achieved a mean average precision (mAP) value of 89%. Hence, the proposed model is considered feasible for identifying five classes of garbage, such as plastic bottles, aluminum cans, plastic bags, styrofoam, and plastic containers.Entities:
Keywords: computer vision; image processing; object detection; smart city; urbanization; water quality
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36033781 PMCID: PMC9412171 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.907280
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
The training and test datasets.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Plastic bottle | 3,798 | 1,085 |
| Aluminum can | 2,799 | 586 |
| Plastic bag | 2,060 | 551 |
| Styrofoam | 487 | 146 |
| Plastic container | 410 | 113 |
| Total | 9,554 | 2,481 |
Figure 1The fine-tuned module structure.
Figure 2CSP2_X module structure.
Figure 3Bounding box prediction with specifications.
Figure 4The detection model's convergence rate during the training process.
Figure 5The detection model's convergence rate for various subdivisions parameter.
The detection performance for different convolutional weights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Yolov4-csp.conv.142 | 58.5 | 0.6 | 55 | 10 |
| Yolov4-sam-mish.conv.105 | 70.9 | 0.7 | 64 | 10.3 |
| Cspx-p7-mish_hp.344.conv | 55.2 | 0.6 | 51 | 12.5 |
| Darknet19_448. conv. 23 | 50.2 | 0.5 | 47 | 12.5 |
| Yolov4. conv. 137 | 71.2 | 0.7 | 68 | 11 |
| The proposed work | 89.0 | 0.8 | 86 | 7.5 |
The hyperparameters of the proposed model.
|
|
|
|---|---|
| Initial learning rate | 0.00100 |
| Epoch | 10,000 |
| Batch size | 64 |
| Subdivisions | 8 |
| Optimizer weight decay | 0.00050 |
| Momentum | 0.84900 |
| Classification coefficient | 0.20600 |
| Hue | 0.01700 |
| Saturation | 1.50000 |
| Exposure | 1.50000 |
| Value | 0.50000 |
| Scale | 0.10000 |
| Shear | 0.00000 |
| Mosaic | 1.00000 |
| Mix up | 1.00000 |
| Flip up-down | Horizontal, vertical |
| Rotation | 30°, 45°, 60°, 90°, 180° |
Figure 6Aluminum cans.
Figure 9Plastic bags.
Figure 10The precision of the object detector using a different threshold value.
Figure 11The recall of the object detector using a different threshold value.
Figure 12The F1-score of the object detector using different threshold values.
Figure 13The ROC curves of the proposed model and other models.
Performance comparison of the proposed model with other YOLO models.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Yolov3-tiny | 52.5 | 0.4 | 40 |
| Yolov4-tiny | 58.3 | 0.5 | 51 |
| Yolov3 | 65.8 | 0.6 | 62 |
| Yolov4 | 71.2 | 0.7 | 68 |
| The proposed work | 89.0 | 0.8 | 86 |
Benchmarking the proposed work with previous works on garbage detection.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Watanabe et al. ( | 4 classes (plastic bottles, plastic bag, drift wood, and other debris) | 77.2% |
| Fulton et al. ( | 3 classes (plastic debris, biological materials and man-made objects) | 81 % |
| Li et al. ( | 3 classes (plastic bottle, plastic bag, and Styrofoam) | 91.4% |
| The proposed work on 2,481 test images | 5 classes (styrofoam, plastic bag, plastic bottle, plastic container, and aluminum can) | 89 % |