2014 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) 2014
DOI: 10.1109/ijcnn.2014.6889750
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Automatic forest species recognition based on multiple feature sets

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Computing an ensemble of features in these subdivisions resulted in a boosting of the recognition rate to 93.2%. Kapp et al (2012) also used a quadtree-based approach to assess multiple sets of features on the same dataset and reported recognition scores of 95%. Finally, Hafemann et al (2014) compared textural descriptors with classical classifiers to the performance of a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), which yielded an accuracy of 95% (Table 2).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Computing an ensemble of features in these subdivisions resulted in a boosting of the recognition rate to 93.2%. Kapp et al (2012) also used a quadtree-based approach to assess multiple sets of features on the same dataset and reported recognition scores of 95%. Finally, Hafemann et al (2014) compared textural descriptors with classical classifiers to the performance of a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), which yielded an accuracy of 95% (Table 2).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As observed, AMLF with global cost reduction can result in a system with about or less than 1/20 of the cost of SLF, but achieving better recognition rates in both datasets. Comparing with other methods that achieved better results on the microscopic dataset, we see that the methods presented in [6] and [7] reach recognition rates that are 4.15 and 2.51 percentage points better than AMLF, respectively, but with corresponding costs that are 31.2 and 60.0 times higher. However, neither of those methods outperform AMLF in the macroscopic dataset.…”
Section: Summary Of the Resultsmentioning
confidence: 78%
“…Research on microscopic imagens is more recent and became more popular with the release of a public database composed of 2240 images of 112 different species (see Section 2.1), which made benchmarking and evaluation easier. Similarly to the literature on macroscopic images, most of the works on forest species using microscopic images use textural representation such as LBP [12], LPQ [12] and their variants [7,11]. CNN also has been proved to be an interesting alternative for microscopic images [6].…”
Section: State Of the Artmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Kapp et al [17] assessed multiple feature sets using a quadtree-based approach and reported recognition rates of 95 and 88 % for the microscopic [25] and macroscopic [34] databases, respectively. Hafemann et al [13] took a different approach, and instead of using textural descriptors, they used the images to train a convolutional neural network (CNN).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%