Deep Convolutional Neural Network Based Ship Images Classification
Deep Convolutional Neural Network Based Ship Images Classification
net/publication/350181100
CITATIONS READS
16 855
3 authors, including:
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Narendra KUMAR Mishra on 11 May 2021.
ABSTRACT
Ships are an integral part of maritime traffic where they play both militaries as well as non-combatant roles.
This vast maritime traffic needs to be managed and monitored by identifying and recognising vessels to ensure the
maritime safety and security. As an approach to find an automated and efficient solution, a deep learning model
exploiting convolutional neural network (CNN) as a basic building block, has been proposed in this paper. CNN
has been predominantly used in image recognition due to its automatic high-level features extraction capabilities
and exceptional performance. We have used transfer learning approach using pre-trained CNNs based on VGG16
architecture to develop an algorithm that performs the different ship types classification. This paper adopts data
augmentation and fine-tuning to further improve and optimize the baseline VGG16 model. The proposed model
attains an average classification accuracy of 97.08% compared to the average classification accuracy of 88.54%
obtained from the baseline model.
Keywords: Ship classification; Convolutional neural network; Transfer learning; VGG16
200
Mishra, et al.: Deep Convolutional Neural Network based Ship images Classification
201
Def. SCI. J., Vol. 71, No. 2, march 2021
Table 1. Choice of transfer learning approach depending upon the similarity and size of the images in the new problem of a statement
as compared to the original dataset
Case Factors ( of new dataset Choice of transfer learning Explanation
compared to the original dataset) approach
Similarity Size
(1) Similar Smaller Train only a classifier layer Fine-tuning of the pretrained weights would lead to the
using pretrained weights overfitting problem due to the small dataset. As images in the
new problem of interest have similarities with the original
dataset, features learned by the pretrained weights would still
be relevant.
(2) Similar Larger The model can be fine-tuned Since the new dataset is sufficiently large, re-training would
through the full network. not suffer overfitting issues.
(3) Dissimilar Smaller Few convolutional layers, Since the new dataset is small, only the classifier layer to be re-
including the classifier layer, trained. However, due to the new dataset’s difference compared
can be fine-tuned. to the original dataset, few convolutional layers need to be re-
trained to learn the features specific to the new dataset.
(4) Dissimilar Larger A model can be developed A model can be trained from scratch due to the availability of
from scratch, or transfer a large data set. Alternatively, transfer learning can be utilised
learning can be utilised by by fine-tuning through the entire network.
fine-tuning through the entire
network.
202
Mishra, et al.: Deep Convolutional Neural Network based Ship images Classification
AlexNet, Inception, and ResNet50 has been developed experiment purpose, we obtained the dataset by downloading
using the MARVEL dataset16, a large-scale image dataset ship images from the aforementioned website.
for maritime vessels. MARVEL dataset is a huge collection The website consists of a large number of vessel images for
of marine vessels consisting of 2 million images from ship each category. To reduce our model’s processing complexity;
photos and ship tracker website17. Ship classification18 using we have compiled a class balanced dataset comprised of 2400
AlexNet model for ten categories of vessels using images images of four classes: aircraft carrier, Crude oil tankers,
from the same website has been developed. More studies19-20 Cruise ships & liners, and Destroyers. A few images from the
have been undertaken using images from the same website. training dataset for each category are demonstrated in Fig. 6.
Although these studies have used transfer learning based The complete dataset has been distributed in a proportion of
architectures and have used images from the same website, 80:20 for training and testing of the proposed model. Twenty
one-to-one performance comparison with the present study percent of the training dataset has been further utilised for
cannot be undertaken due to lack of uniformity in the datasets. validation purposes. Description of a number of the training
and testing images from the dataset are enumerated in
3. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN Table 2. All the images were saved by keeping the pixel size
3.1 Dataset of 224 of the image’s largest dimension without affecting the
The first challenge in training and validating the proposed pixel qualities as the standard VGG16 model was developed
model was the availability of authentic and labelled images using an input image size of 224x224.
of ships for classification purposes. To ensure this, for our
Aircraft Carriers Crude Oil Tankers Cruise Ships and Liners Destroyers
203
Def. SCI. J., Vol. 71, No. 2, march 2021
204
Mishra, et al.: Deep Convolutional Neural Network based Ship images Classification
numbers of nodes in each layer as it enhances the model (c) Batch Normalisation and Dropout have been embedded
capacity. However, it has been observed empirically that a into the Block-6 consisting of fully connected layers.
deeper network lead to the overfitting of the model, higher The process flow architecture of the proposed model is
complexity, and more training time due to the increased presented in Fig. 8.
number of learnable parameters. Therefore, the impact of
the number of hidden layers and nodes in each layer is 3.2.4 Experimental Parameters
evaluated empirically, and optimal numbers were chosen The proposed model has been trained and evaluated on
accordingly. the Google Colab cloud server. The Hyperparameter values
(ii) Learning Rates: Learning rate is one of the vital have been tuned optimally in multiple iterations while training
Hyperparameter that needs careful selection. Through our model. Details of the final experimental parameters are
experiments, it has been observed that a small learning tabulated in Table 3.
rate causes the trapping and slow down of the
learning process; whereas, a large value of learning
rate leads to quick and non-optimal convergence. An
optimal value of the learning rate has been chosen
empirically.
(iii) Batchsize: Batchsize is the number of training samples
fed to the gradient descent algorithm in determining
the error gradient. It is a vital Hyperparameter that
influences the learning algorithm’s dynamics.
(iv) BatchNormalisation: BatchNormalisation performs
the normalisation (shifting and scaling) of the output
from a convolutional layer before feeding it to the next
layer that reduces the covariance shift of the network21.
It speeds up the learning process of an artificial neural
network with enhanced stability.
(v) Regularisation: A major challenge in the development
of any deep learning model is to overcome the
overfitting problem so that it may generalize well
on the new dataset. To mitigate this issue, two
prominent regularisation techniques, Dropout22 and
Early Stopping, have been used in this paper. These
techniques not only reduce overfitting but can also
lead to the faster optimisation and better overall
performance.
205
Def. SCI. J., Vol. 71, No. 2, march 2021
4. ANALYSIS and RESULTS Table 3. Hyperparameters selected for the training of the
Both baseline and proposed models have been trained baseline and the proposed model.
on Google Colab using Hyperparameters as listed in Table Experimental parameters Values
3 for the same input dataset. The details of classification
Learning rate 0.0001
performance measures for both the models are tabulated in
Table 4. It is to be noted that the Early Stopping criterion takes Momentum 0.99
almost twice the number of epochs to exit the training process Batchsize 32
in the proposed model. A gap of 4.3% between training and Number of epochs 500 with early stopping
validation accuracy in the baseline model was further reduced Dropout 0.2-0.5
to 2.4% in the proposed model, showing reduced overfitting Optimizer Adam
and better convergence. Evaluation of the test dataset shows a
performance improvement of 8.54% in terms Table 4. Classification performance measures for the Baseline and the Proposed
of classification accuracy compared to the Model.
baseline model.
The performance has been also Performance Measures
evaluated by analysing the graphs of Model
Training Validation Testing Epochs
classification accuracy and cross-entropy loss Accuracy Accuracy Accuracy (max 500)
during the training process. In the baseline Loss Loss Loss
(%) (%) (%)
model, through the analysis of graphs of
Baseline 0.0609 97.53 0.2321 93.23 0.4856 88.54 161
classification accuracy and cross-entropy
loss, as shown in Fig. 9, it has been observed Proposed 0.0068 99.80 0.1728 97.40 0.1347 97.08 327
that there exists a considerable gap between
the training and validation, which confirms overfitting in the
model. Regularisation (through Dropout) and Early Stopping
has been included into the baseline model to reduce the impact
of overfitting. The corresponding graph for the proposed
model showing improved performance and better convergence
between training and validation is shown in Fig. 10.
The confusion matrix23, which provides the matrix of true
labels vs. predicted labels, is shown in Figs. 11 and 12 for the
baseline and the proposed models. It represents the number
of true classifications in each category through the diagonal
elements. It has been observed that significant confusion
occurs between the aircraft carrier and destroyer category of
images, and the same has been predicted due to the similarity
of features between the two categories. Six aircraft carrier
images have been incorrectly predicted to destroyer-class in
206
Mishra, et al.: Deep Convolutional Neural Network based Ship images Classification
207
Def. SCI. J., Vol. 71, No. 2, march 2021
208