深度图分类中神经网络与特征提取方法的比较

Q4 Engineering
Sykora, Kamencay, Hudec, Benco, Sinko
{"title":"深度图分类中神经网络与特征提取方法的比较","authors":"Sykora, Kamencay, Hudec, Benco, Sinko","doi":"10.3849/aimt.01326","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, a comparison between feature extraction methods (Radon Cosine Method, Canny Contour Method, Fourier Transform, SIFT descriptor, and Hough Lines Method) and Convolutional Neural Networks (proposed CNN and pre-trained AlexNet) is presented. For the evaluation of these methods, depth maps were used. The tested data were obtained by Microsoft Kinect camera (IR depth sensor). The feature vectors were classified by the Support Vector Machine (SVM). The confusion matrix for the evaluation of experimental results was used. The row of confusion matrix represents target class of tested data and the column represents predicted class. From the experimental results, it is evident that the best results were achieved by proposed CNN (97.4%). On the other hand, the pre-trained AlexNet scored 93.7%.","PeriodicalId":39125,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Military Technology","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Neural Networks with Feature Extraction Methods for Depth Map Classification\",\"authors\":\"Sykora, Kamencay, Hudec, Benco, Sinko\",\"doi\":\"10.3849/aimt.01326\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this paper, a comparison between feature extraction methods (Radon Cosine Method, Canny Contour Method, Fourier Transform, SIFT descriptor, and Hough Lines Method) and Convolutional Neural Networks (proposed CNN and pre-trained AlexNet) is presented. For the evaluation of these methods, depth maps were used. The tested data were obtained by Microsoft Kinect camera (IR depth sensor). The feature vectors were classified by the Support Vector Machine (SVM). The confusion matrix for the evaluation of experimental results was used. The row of confusion matrix represents target class of tested data and the column represents predicted class. From the experimental results, it is evident that the best results were achieved by proposed CNN (97.4%). On the other hand, the pre-trained AlexNet scored 93.7%.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39125,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Military Technology\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Military Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3849/aimt.01326\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Engineering\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Military Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3849/aimt.01326","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Engineering","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本文比较了特征提取方法(Radon余弦法、Canny轮廓法、傅立叶变换、SIFT描述子和霍夫线法)和卷积神经网络(提出的CNN和预训练的AlexNet)。为了评估这些方法,我们使用了深度图。测试数据由微软Kinect摄像头(红外深度传感器)获取。利用支持向量机(SVM)对特征向量进行分类。采用混淆矩阵对实验结果进行评价。混淆矩阵的行表示测试数据的目标类,列表示预测类。从实验结果可以看出,本文提出的CNN达到了最好的效果(97.4%)。另一方面,经过预先训练的AlexNet得分为93.7%。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Neural Networks with Feature Extraction Methods for Depth Map Classification
In this paper, a comparison between feature extraction methods (Radon Cosine Method, Canny Contour Method, Fourier Transform, SIFT descriptor, and Hough Lines Method) and Convolutional Neural Networks (proposed CNN and pre-trained AlexNet) is presented. For the evaluation of these methods, depth maps were used. The tested data were obtained by Microsoft Kinect camera (IR depth sensor). The feature vectors were classified by the Support Vector Machine (SVM). The confusion matrix for the evaluation of experimental results was used. The row of confusion matrix represents target class of tested data and the column represents predicted class. From the experimental results, it is evident that the best results were achieved by proposed CNN (97.4%). On the other hand, the pre-trained AlexNet scored 93.7%.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Advances in Military Technology
Advances in Military Technology Engineering-Civil and Structural Engineering
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信