2018
DOI: 10.1117/1.oe.57.5.053114
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Railway equipment detection using exact height function shape descriptor based on fast adaptive Markov random field

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The experimental environment is as follows: Windows 10 (×64) operating system, CPU Intel Core I7-6700 v4 @2.60GHz and 16GB RAM, all experiments are implemented by Matlab and Tensorflow. Furthermore, in order to effectively verify the performance of the algorithm, four evaluation indicators are established [29]: correct detection rate (CDR), missing detection rate (MDR), false detection rate (FDR), and detection speed. For example, suppose the number of all fault images in the test set is n, the number of detected fault images is a, the number of undetected fault images is b, and the number of incorrect image detection results is c. So, the above indexes can be defined as: CDR = a/n, MDR = b/n, FDR = c/n.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The experimental environment is as follows: Windows 10 (×64) operating system, CPU Intel Core I7-6700 v4 @2.60GHz and 16GB RAM, all experiments are implemented by Matlab and Tensorflow. Furthermore, in order to effectively verify the performance of the algorithm, four evaluation indicators are established [29]: correct detection rate (CDR), missing detection rate (MDR), false detection rate (FDR), and detection speed. For example, suppose the number of all fault images in the test set is n, the number of detected fault images is a, the number of undetected fault images is b, and the number of incorrect image detection results is c. So, the above indexes can be defined as: CDR = a/n, MDR = b/n, FDR = c/n.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To illustrate the superiority of our method, we compare our framework called as Light-weight Real-time FTI-FDet (LR FTI-FDet) with traditional detectors (Cascade detector with local binary pattern (LBP) [15], FAMRF + EHF [15], histogram of oriented gradient (HOG) + Adaboost + SVM [35]), one-stage detectors (YOLOv3 [19], SSD [20], RefineDet [22], RON [21], DSOD), two-stage detectors (Faster R-CNN [5], MLKP [24], R-FCN [6], Cascade R-CNN [25], FTI-FDet [7], Light FTI-FDet [4]), and light-weight detectors (MobileNetV2-SSD [11], MobileNetV2-SSDLite [11], ShuffleNetV2-SSD [26], Tiny-DSOD [28], Pelee [29]). In addition, we compare RFDNet-SSD with all above methods to discuss the performance of RFDNet and depthwise separable Conv.-based networks (e.g.…”
Section: Comparison With State-of-the-art Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, these methods only detect one type of faults, which greatly influence their effectiveness. In addition, Sun et al [15] proposed a fast adaptive Markov random field (FAMRF) for image segmentation and an exact height function (EHF) for shape matching of fault region. This method solves the problem of multi-fault detection, but it is too complex to achieve enough accuracy and fast speed.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, a CNN-based system detects regions of interest, then another CNN extracts bolts edges; lastly, to detect single or multiple bolt loosening, a 3D reconstruction method was used to calculate the distance between the bolt cap and the mounting surface. Results show optimal performances with a relative error smaller than 1.42%, moreover, the processing Faster R-CNN (GoogLeNet+HyperNet) CDR: 99.86% [140] from [152] (as [139]) and [153] Not From [139], [140] As described in [139], [140] OD D6 Brake show key, 9600 images grouped into 2 classes (no-fault, fault) SqueezeNet mCDR: 98.60%…”
Section: A Bogie and Framementioning
confidence: 99%