학술논문

A Comparative Analysis for 2D Object Recognition: A Case Study with Tactode Puzzle-Like Tiles.
Document Type
Academic Journal
Author
Silva D; Institute for Systems and Computer Engineering, Technology and Science (INESC TEC), 4200-465 Porto, Portugal.; Department of Engineering, University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro (UTAD), 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal.; Sousa A; Institute for Systems and Computer Engineering, Technology and Science (INESC TEC), 4200-465 Porto, Portugal.; Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto (FEUP), 4200-465 Porto, Portugal.; Costa V; Institute of Science and Innovation in Mechanical and Industrial Engineering (INEGI), 4200-465 Porto, Portugal.
Source
Publisher: MDPI Country of Publication: Switzerland NLM ID: 101698819 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 2313-433X (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 2313433X NLM ISO Abbreviation: J Imaging Subsets: PubMed not MEDLINE
Subject
Language
English
Abstract
Object recognition represents the ability of a system to identify objects, humans or animals in images. Within this domain, this work presents a comparative analysis among different classification methods aiming at Tactode tile recognition. The covered methods include: (i) machine learning with HOG and SVM; (ii) deep learning with CNNs such as VGG16, VGG19, ResNet152, MobileNetV2, SSD and YOLOv4; (iii) matching of handcrafted features with SIFT, SURF, BRISK and ORB; and (iv) template matching. A dataset was created to train learning-based methods (i and ii), and with respect to the other methods (iii and iv), a template dataset was used. To evaluate the performance of the recognition methods, two test datasets were built: tactode_small and tactode_big , which consisted of 288 and 12,000 images, holding 2784 and 96,000 regions of interest for classification, respectively. SSD and YOLOv4 were the worst methods for their domain, whereas ResNet152 and MobileNetV2 showed that they were strong recognition methods. SURF, ORB and BRISK demonstrated great recognition performance, while SIFT was the worst of this type of method. The methods based on template matching attained reasonable recognition results, falling behind most other methods. The top three methods of this study were: VGG16 with an accuracy of 99.96% and 99.95% for tactode_small and tactode_big , respectively; VGG19 with an accuracy of 99.96% and 99.68% for the same datasets; and HOG and SVM, which reached an accuracy of 99.93% for tactode_small and 99.86% for tactode_big , while at the same time presenting average execution times of 0.323 s and 0.232 s on the respective datasets, being the fastest method overall. This work demonstrated that VGG16 was the best choice for this case study, since it minimised the misclassifications for both test datasets.