Submitted:
18 June 2024
Posted:
20 June 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
- This paper utilizes the infrared spectrum detection method of aero-engine hot jet as the foundation for aero-engine identification and input of data source. The hot jet is a significant infrared radiation feature of an aero-engine, and the infrared spectrum offers molecular-level information about substances. Thus, employing this approach for categorization is more scientifically valid.
- In this paper, a new benchmark data set is developed. The data set is obtained from the field environment. The dataset consists of three sub-datasets, including a 443 spectral data set with a resolution of 1cm−1, a 1371 spectral data set with 1cm−1 and 0.5cm−1 resolution and a large dataset of 1814 spectral data. The data set covers the infrared spectrum in the wavelength range of 2.5~12 μm, including six types of different aero-engine models (including turbine engine and turbofan engine).
- This paper provides a deep learning framework for classification of aero-engine hot jet infrared spectra. A convolutional neural network based on peak seeking attention mechanism is designed. The backbone network consists of three feature extraction blocks with the same structure, batch normalization layer and maximum pooling layer. In the part of attention mechanism based on peak seeking, the spectral peak value is detected by continuous wavelet transform method and the peak wave number of high frequency occurs is counted. The attention mechanism weights the peak value obtained by statistics and acts on the feature map of the trunk CNN. The structure of the network is light, and the classification accuracy and operation efficiency can be taken into account.
2. Spectral Classification Network Structure Design
2.1. Overall Network Design
2.2. Backbone Network Design
2.3. Attention Mechanism based on Peak Seeking
| Algorithm 1 : Peak seeking algorithm and peak statistics. |
| Input: Spectral data. |
| Output: Peak data. |
|
2.3.2. Attention Mechanism
| Algorithm 2: CNN with attention Mechanism. |
| Input: Spectral data, peak data. |
| Output: Prediction label for prediction data set. |
|
2.4. Network Training Method
2.4.1. Optimizer
2.4.2. Loss Function
2.4.3. Activation Function
3.1. Design of Aero-Engine Spectrum Measurement Experiment
4. Experiments and Results


5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Manijeh,Razeghi,Binh-Minh,et al.Advances in mid-infrared detection and imaging: a key issues review.Reports on Progress in Physics, 2014.
- Chikkaraddy R, Arul R, Jakob L A,et al.Single-molecule mid-IR detection through vibrationally-assisted luminescence. 2022.
- Knez D, Toulson B W, Chen A,et al.Spectral imaging at high definition and high speed in the mid-infrared.Science advances, 2022(46).
- Zhang J, Gong Y.Automated identification of infrared spectra of hazardous clouds by passive FTIR remote sensing//Multispectral & Hyperspectral Image Acquisition & Processing.International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2001.
- Roh S B, Oh S K. Identification of Plastic Wastes by Using Fuzzy Radial Basis Function Neural Networks Classifier with Conditional Fuzzy C-Means Clustering. Journal of Electrical Engineering & Technology, 2016, 11, 103–116.
- Vinayak V, Gautam S, Namdeo V,et al.Fast Fourier infrared spectroscopy to characterize the biochemical composition in diatoms. (Accepted, Sept 2018, Vol 3 no-4).Journal of Biosciences, 2018, 3.
- Han X, Li X, Gao M, et al. Emissions of Airport Monitoring with Solar Occultation Flux-Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometer. Journal of Spectroscopy, 2018, 2018, 1–10.
- Cięszczyk, S. Passive open-path FTIR measurements and spectral interpretations for in situ gas monitoring and process diagnostics. Acta Physica Polonica A, 2014, 126, 673–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schütze C, Lau S, Reiche N, et al. Ground-based remote sensing with open-path Fourier-transform infrared (OP-FTIR) spectroscopy for large-scale monitoring of greenhouse gases. Energy Procedia, 2013, 37, 4276–4282.
- YANG L, TAO Z. Aircraft image recognition in airport flight area based on deep transfer learning//International Conference on Smart Transportation and City Engineering 2021, Chongqing, China. 2021.
- Shen, H. , Huo, K. , Qiao, X., & Li, C. Aircraft target type recognition technology based on deep learning and structure feature matching. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2023, 45, 5685–5696. [Google Scholar]
- LI X, LI Z, QIU H, et al. An overview of hyperspectral image feature extraction, classification methods and the methods based on small samples. Applied Spectroscopy Reviews, 2021: 1-34.
- Vaswani, A. , Shazeer, N.M., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A.N., Kaiser, L., & Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention is All you Need. Neural Information Processing Systems.
- AUDEBERT N, LE SAUX B, LEFEVRE S. Deep Learning for Classification of Hyperspectral Data: A Comparative Review. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine, 2019, 159-173.
- RASTI B, HONG D, HANG R, et al. Feature Extraction for Hyperspectral Imagery: The Evolution From Shallow to Deep: Overview and Toolbox. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine, 2020, 60-88.
- Lu, W.; Wang, X.; Sun, L.; Zheng, Y. Spectral–Spatial Feature Extraction for Hyperspectral Image Classification Using Enhanced Transformer with Large-Kernel Attention. Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CHEN Y, LIN Z, ZHAO X, et al. Deep Learning-Based Classification of Hyperspectral Data. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 2014, 2094-2107.
- KEMKER R, KANAN C. Self-Taught Feature Learning for Hyperspectral Image Classification. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2017, 2693-2705.
- DING Y, ZHAO X, ZHANG Z, et al. Graph Sample and Aggregate-Attention Network for Hyperspectral Image Classification. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 2022: 1-5.
- LI Z, ZHAO B, WANG W. An Efficient Spectral Feature Extraction Framework for Hyperspectral Images. Remote Sensing, 2020, 3967.
- Ashraf, M.; Zhou, X.; Vivone, G.; Chen, L.; Chen, R.; Majdard, R.S. Spatial-Spectral BERT for Hyperspectral Image Classification. Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- HAMOUDA M, ETTABAA K S, BOUHLEL M S. Smart feature extraction and classification of hyperspectral images based on convolutional neural networks. IET Image Processing, 2020, 14(10): 1999-2005.
- LECUN Y, BOTTOU L, BENGIO Y, et al. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE, 1998, 2278-2324.
- KRIZHEVSKY A, SUTSKEVER I, HINTON G E. ImageNet Classification with Deep Convolutional Neural Networks. Communications of the ACM, 2017: 84-90.
- SIMONYAN K, ZISSERMAN A. Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition. International Conference on Learning Representations,International Conference on Learning Representations, 2015.
- SZEGEDY C, WEI LIU, YANGQING JIA, et al. Going deeper with convolutions//2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Boston, MA, USA. 2015.
- HE K, ZHANG X, REN S, et al. Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition//2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Las Vegas, NV, USA. 2016.
- IOFFE S, SZEGEDY C. Batch Normalization: Accelerating Deep Network Training by Reducing Internal Covariate Shift. arXiv: Learning,arXiv: Learning, 2015.
- Doubenskaia, M.; Pavlov, M.; Grigoriev, S.; Smurov, I. Definition of brightness temperature and restoration of true temperature in laser cladding using infrared camera. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2013, 220, 244–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Homan, D.C.; Cohen, M.H.; Hovatta, T.; Kellermann, K.I.; Kovalev, Y.Y.; Lister, M.L.; Popkov, A.V.; Pushkarev, A.B.; Ros, E.; Savolainen, T. MOJAVE. XIX. Brightness Temperatures and Intrinsic Properties of Blazar Jets. Astrophys. J. 2021, 923, 67. [Google Scholar]
- HU J, SHEN L, ALBANIE S, et al. Squeeze-and-Excitation Networks. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2020: 2011-2023.
- WOO S, PARK J, LEE J Y, et al. CBAM: Convolutional Block Attention Module//Computer Vision – ECCV 2018,Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2018: 3-19.
- WANG Q, WU B, ZHU P, et al. ECA-Net: Efficient Channel Attention for Deep Convolutional Neural Networks//2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Seattle, WA, USA. 2020.
- LI X, HU X, YANG J. Spatial Group-wise Enhance: Improving Semantic Feature Learning in Convolutional Networks. Cornell University - arXiv,Cornell University - arXiv, 2019.
- KINGMA DiederikP, BA J. Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization. arXiv: Learning,arXiv: Learning, 2014.












| Name | Measurement Pattern | Spectral Resolution (cm−1) | Spectral Measurement Range (µm) | Full Field of View Angle |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EM27 | Active/Passive | Active: 0.5/1 Passive: 0.5/1/4 | 2.5~12 | 30 mrad (no telescope) (1.7°) |
| Telemetry Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometer | Passive | 1 | 2.5~12 | 1.5° |
| Aero-Engine Serial Number | Environmental Temperature | Environmental Humidity | Detection Distance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Turbofan engine 1 | 19℃ | 58.5%Rh | 5m |
| Turbofan engine 2 | 16℃ | 67%Rh | 5m |
| Turbojet engine | 14℃ | 40%Rh | 5m |
| Turbojet UAV | 30℃ | 43.5%Rh | 11.8m |
| Turbojet UAV with propeller at tail | 20℃ | 71.5%Rh | 5m |
| Turbojet manned aircraft | 19℃ | 73.5%Rh | 10m |
| Label | Type | Number of data pieces | Number of error data | Full band data volume | Medium wave range data volume |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Turbofan engine 1 | 792 | 17 | 16384(1cm−1)/32768(0.5cm−1) | 7464/14928 |
| 2 | Turbofan engine 2 | 258 | 2 | 16384(1cm−1)/32768(0.5cm−1) | 7464/14928 |
| 3 | Turbojet engine | 384 | 4 | 16384(1cm−1)/32768(0.5cm−1) | 7464/14928 |
| Label | Type | Number of data pieces | Number of error data | Full band data volume | Medium wave range data volume |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Turbojet UAV | 193 | 0 | 16384 | 7464 |
| 2 | Turbojet UAV with propeller at tail | 48 | 0 | 16384 | 7464 |
| 3 | Turbojet manned aircraft | 202 | 3 | 16384 | 7464 |
| Label | Type | Number of data pieces | Number of error data | Full band data volume | Medium wave range data volume |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Turbojet UAV | 193 | 0 | 16384 | 7464 |
| 2 | Turbojet UAV with propeller at tail | 48 | 0 | 16384 | 7464 |
| 3 | Turbojet manned aircraft | 202 | 3 | 16384 | 7464 |
| 4 | Turbofan engine 1 | 792 | 17 | 16384 | 7464 |
| 5 | Turbofan engine 2 | 258 | 2 | 16384 | 7464 |
| 6 | Turbojet engine | 384 | 4 | 16384 | 7464 |
| Forecast results | |||
| Positive samples | Negative samples | ||
| Real results | Positive samples | TP | TN |
| Negative samples | FP | FN | |
| Methods | Parameter Settings |
|---|---|
| CWT-AM-CNN | Conv1D(32, 3) ,Conv1D(64, 3), Conv1D(128, 3),activation='relu' |
| BatchNormalization() | |
| MaxPooling1D(2)(x) | |
| Dense(128, activation='relu'),activation='softmax' | |
| Optimizers=Adam ,lr=0.00001 | |
| loss='sparse_categorical_crossentropy',metrics=['accuracy']) | |
| epochs=500 |
| Evaluation criterion | Accuracy | Precision score | Recall | Confusion matrix |
F1-score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Datasets | ||||||
| DatasetA | 97.44% | 94.08% | 85.11% | [11 8 0] [ 0 77 0] [ 1 0 38] |
88.24% | |
| DatasetB | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | [19 0 0] [ 0 8 0] [ 0 0 17] |
100.00% | |
| DatasetC | 100% | 98.72% | 94.70% | [17 0 0 0 0 0] [ 0 7 0 0 0 0] [ 0 0 16 0 0 0] [ 0 0 0 84 0 0] [ 0 0 0 7 15 0] [ 0 0 0 0 0 33] |
96.18% | |
| Characteristic Peak Type | Emission Peak (cm−1) | Absorption Peak (cm−1) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peak standard features | 2350 | 2390 | 720 | 667 |
| Characteristic peak range values | 2350.5-2348 | 2377-2392 | 722-718 | 666.7-670.5 |
| Methods | Parameter Settings |
|---|---|
| SVM | decision_function_shape = ‘ovr’, kernel = ‘rbf’ |
| XGBoost | objective = ‘multi:softmax’, num_classes = num_classes |
| CatBoost | loss_function = ‘MultiClass’ |
| Adaboost | n_estimators = 200 |
| Random Forest | n_estimators = 300 |
| LightGBM | objective’: ‘multiclass’, ‘num_class’: num_classes |
| Neural Network | hidden_layer_sizes = (100), activation = ‘relu’, solver = ‘adam’, max_iter = 200 |
| Evaluation criterion | Accuracy | Precision score | Recall | Confusion matrix |
F1-score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Classification methods | ||||||
| Feature vector+SVM | 57.04% | 33.33% | 19.01% | [ 0 0 0] [19 77 39] [ 0 0 0] |
24.21% | |
| Feature vector+XGBoost | 96.30% | 96.09% | 94.36% | [18 3 0] [ 1 74 1] [ 0 0 38] |
95.14% | |
| Feature vector+CatBoost | 97.04% | 96.53% | 95.80% | [18 2 0] [ 1 75 1] [ 0 0 38] |
96.14% | |
| Feature vector+AdaBoost | 74.81% | 74.29% | 71.93% | [11 25 0] [ 8 52 1] [ 0 0 38] |
71.35% | |
| Feature vector+Random Forest | 97.04% | 96.53% | 95.80% | [18 2 0] [ 1 75 1] [ 0 0 38] |
96.14% | |
| Feature vector+LightGBM | 96.30% | 96.09% | 94.36% | [18 3 0] [ 1 74 1] [ 0 0 38] |
95.14% | |
| Feature vector+Neural Networks | 86.67% | 68.42% | 92.64% | [ 1 0 0] [16 77 0] [ 2 0 39] |
66.03% | |
| Evaluation criterion | Accuracy | Precision score | Recall | Confusion matrix |
F1-score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Classification methods | ||||||
| Feature vector+SVM | 86.36% | 88.24% | 92.00% | [19 0 6] [ 0 8 0] [ 0 0 11] |
88.31% | |
| Feature vector+XGBoost | 84.09% | 86.48% | 88.89% | [18 0 6] [ 0 8 0] [ 1 0 11] |
86.53% | |
| Feature vector+CatBoost | 86.36% | 88.24% | 92.00% | [19 0 6] [ 0 8 0] [ 0 0 11] |
88.31% | |
| Feature vector+AdaBoost | 77.27% | 80.60% | 85.19% | [18 0 9] [ 0 8 0] [ 1 0 8] |
79.93% | |
| Feature vector+Random Forest | 86.36% | 88.24% | 92.00% | [19 0 6] [ 0 8 0] [ 0 0 11] |
88.31% | |
| Feature vector+LightGBM | 84.09% | 86.48% | 88.89% | [18 0 6] [ 0 8 0] [ 1 0 11] |
86.53% | |
| Feature vector+Neural Networks | 88.64% | 90.20% | 93.06% | [19 0 5] [ 0 8 0] [ 0 0 12] |
90.38% | |
| Evaluation criterion | Accuracy | Precision score | Recall | Confusion matrix |
F1-score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Classification methods | ||||||
| Feature vector+SVM | 59.78% | 44.15% | 47.67% | [ 8 0 3 0 0 0] [ 0 3 0 0 0 0] [ 9 1 12 0 0 0] [ 0 3 1 84 22 33] [ 0 0 0 0 0 0] [ 0 0 0 0 0 0] |
42.38% | |
| Feature vector+XGBoost | 94.97% | 92.44% | 93.59% | [15 0 3 0 0 0] [ 0 7 0 0 0 0] [ 2 0 13 0 0 0] [ 0 0 0 83 3 0] [ 0 0 0 1 19 0] [ 0 0 0 0 0 33] |
92.95% | |
| Feature vector+CatBoost | 94.41% | 90.35% | 93.52% | [15 0 2 0 0 0] [ 0 6 0 0 0 0] [ 2 0 14 0 0 0] [ 0 0 0 83 4 0] [ 0 1 0 1 18 0] [ 0 0 0 0 0 33] |
91.81% | |
| Feature vector+AdaBoost | 79.89% | 63.66% | 71.49% | [17 5 6 0 0 0] [ 0 2 0 0 0 0] [ 0 0 10 0 0 0] [ 0 0 0 84 18 3] [ 0 0 0 0 0 0] [ 0 0 0 0 4 30] |
62.56% | |
| Feature vector+Random Forest | 94.41% | 91.40% | 92.70% | [15 0 4 0 0 0] [ 0 7 0 0 0 0] [ 2 0 12 0 0 0] [ 0 0 0 83 3 0] [ 0 0 0 1 19 0] [ 0 0 0 0 0 33] |
91.91% | |
| Feature vector+LightGBM | 94.41% | 90.68% | 92.40% | [14 0 2 0 0 0] [ 0 6 0 0 0 0] [ 3 0 14 0 0 0] [ 0 0 0 82 2 0] [ 0 1 0 2 20 0] [ 0 0 0 0 0 33] |
91.42% | |
| Feature vector+Neural Networks | 84.92% | 76.79% | 76.57% | [17 0 2 0 0 0] [ 0 6 0 0 0 0] [ 0 0 12 0 0 0] [ 0 0 2 84 18 0] [ 0 1 0 0 0 0] [ 0 0 0 0 4 33] |
76.02% | |
| Methods | Parameter Settings |
|---|---|
| AE | Dense(encoding_dim,activation="relu") Dense(input_dim, activation="sigmoid") Dense(num_classes, activation="softmax") epochs=500, optimizer= Adam(lr=0.00001),loss='sparse_categorical_crossentropy', metrics=['accuracy'] |
| RNN | SimpleRNN(4, return_sequences=True) BatchNormalization() Dense(4, activation='relu') Dense(num_classes, activation='softmax') epochs=500, optimizer= Adam(lr=0.00001),loss='sparse_categorical_crossentropy', metrics=['accuracy'] |
| LSTM | LSTM(8, return_sequences=True),BatchNormalization() LSTM(8),BatchNormalization() Dense(8, activation='relu')) Dense(num_classes, activation='softmax') epochs=500, optimizer= Adam(lr=0.00001),loss='sparse_categorical_crossentropy', metrics=['accuracy'] |
| Methods | Dataset | Accuracy | Precision score | Recall | Confusion matrix |
F1-score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AE | A | 58.52% | 52.63% | 36.84% | [ 2 17 0] [ 0 77 0] [ 0 39 0] |
30.79% |
| B | 38.64% | 12.88% | 33.33% | [ 0 0 19] [ 0 0 8] [ 0 0 17] |
18.58% | |
| C | 46.93% | 7.82% | 16.67% | [ 0 0 0 17 0 0] [ 0 0 0 7 0 0] [ 0 0 0 16 0 0] [ 0 0 0 84 0 0] [ 0 0 0 22 0 0] [ 0 0 0 33 0 0] |
10.65% | |
| RNN | A | 38.64% | 12.88% | 33.33% | [ 0 0 19] [ 0 0 8] [ 0 0 17] |
18.58% |
| B | 57.03% | 19.01% | 33.33% | [ 0 19 0] [ 0 77 0] [ 0 39 0] |
24.21% | |
| C | 46.92% | 7.80% | 16.66% | [ 0 0 0 17 0 0] [ 0 0 0 7 0 0] [ 0 0 0 16 0 0] [ 0 0 0 84 0 0] [ 0 0 0 22 0 0] [ 0 0 0 33 0 0] |
10.64% | |
| LSTM | A | 38.63% | 12.88% | 33.33% | [ 0 0 19] [ 0 0 8] [ 0 0 17] |
18.58% |
| B | 57.03% | 19.01% | 33.33% | [ 0 19 0] [ 0 77 0] [ 0 39 0] |
24.21% | |
| C | 62.57% | 48.72% | 41.91% | [ 4 0 13 0 0 0] [ 0 0 7 0 0 0] [ 0 0 16 0 0 0] [ 0 0 0 82 0 2] [ 0 0 0 22 0 0] [ 0 0 0 23 0 10] |
36.97% |
| SVM | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | Confusion Matrix | F1-score | Running time |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dataset A | 59.26% | 51.08% | 42.27% | [ 0 0 0] [10 41 0] [ 9 36 39] |
42.49% | 0.131497 |
| Dataset B | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | [19 0 0] [ 0 8 0] [ 0 0 17] |
100.00% | 0.008979 |
| Dataset C | 56.98% | 46.13% | 44.43% | [ 4 0 0 0 0 0] [ 0 0 0 0 0 0] [13 7 15 0 0 0] [ 0 0 0 50 11 0] [ 0 0 0 0 0 0] [ 0 0 1 34 11 33] |
37.47% | 0.24201 |
| XGBoost | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | Confusion Matrix | F1-score | Running time |
| Dataset A | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | [19 0 0] [ 0 8 0] [ 0 0 17] |
100.00% | 0.135857 |
| Dataset B | 99.26% | 99.15% | 99.57% | [19 0 0] [ 0 77 1] [ 0 0 38] |
99.35% | 0.204039 |
| Dataset C | 98.88% | 95.24% | 98.15% | [17 0 0 0 0 0] [ 0 5 0 0 0 0] [ 0 2 16 0 0 0] [ 0 0 0 84 0 0] [ 0 0 0 0 22 0] [ 0 0 0 0 0 33] |
96.24% | 0.34023 |
| Evaluation criterion | Accuracy | Precision score | Recall | Confusion matrix |
F1-score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Datasets | ||||||
| Dataset A | 94.07% | 96.86% | 85.96% | [11 8 0] [ 0 77 0] [ 0 0 39] |
89.47% | |
| Dataset B | 100% | 100% | 100% | [19 0 0] [ 0 8 0] [ 0 0 17] |
100% | |
| Dataset C | 96.09% | 98.72% | 94.70% | [17 0 0 0 0 0] [ 0 7 0 0 0 0] [ 0 0 16 0 0 0] [ 0 0 0 84 0 0] [ 0 0 0 7 15 0] [ 0 0 0 0 0 33] |
96.18% | |
| Evaluation criterion | Accuracy | Precision score | Recall | Confusion matrix |
F1-score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Datasets | ||||||
| Dataset A | 92.59% | 91.70% | 84.68% | [11 8 0] [ 1 76 0] [ 1 0 38] |
87.29% | |
| Dataset B | 100% | 100% | 100% | [19 0 0] [ 0 8 0] [ 0 0 17] |
100% | |
| Dataset C | 92.18% | 94.11% | 89.94% | [17 0 0 0 0 0] [ 0 7 0 0 0 0] [ 4 0 12 0 0 0] [ 0 0 0 81 0 3] [ 0 0 0 7 15 0] [ 0 0 0 0 0 33] |
91.02% | |
| Dataset | Number of layers Evaluation |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dataset A | Accuracy | 63% | 66% | 83% | 81% | 79% | 82% |
| Training Time /s | 315.83 | 939.22 | 1332.54 | 1527.18 | 1735.24 | 2032.12 | |
| Evaluation Time/s | 0.14 | 0.18 | 0.22 | 0.33 | 0.35 | 0.32 | |
| Dataset B | Accuracy | 93% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| Training Time /s | 81.90 | 148.38 | 258.92 | 347.15 | 408.00 | 431.55 | |
| Evaluation Time/s | 0.12 | 0.13 | 0.18 | 0.25 | 0.22 | 0.25 | |
| Dataset C | Accuracy | 63% | 74% | 77% | 73% | 78% | 82% |
| Training Time /s | 421.56 | 1088.86 | 1522.65 | 2014.09 | 2411.60 | 2850.66 | |
| Evaluation Time/s | 0.16 | 0.15 | 0.21 | 0.23 | 0.30 | 0.36 |
| Optimizers | Prediction accuracy | Training time/s | Prediction time/s |
|---|---|---|---|
| SGD | 93% | 1663.36 | 0.25 |
| SGDM | 93% | 2074.59 | 0.23 |
| Adagrad | 94% | 2133.88 | 0.24 |
| RMSProp | 89% | 2194.60 | 0.27 |
| Adam | 94% | 2165.09 | 0.24 |
| Learning rate | Prediction accuracy | Training time/s | Prediction time/s |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.01 | 0.47 | 878.21 | 0.26 |
| 0.001 | 0.75 | 1215.80 | 0.20 |
| 0.0001 | 0.42 | 1246.89 | 0.21 |
| 0.00001 | 0.95 | 1241.00 | 0.22 |
| 0.000001 | 0.95 | 1221.39 | 0.21 |
| Method | Running time /s | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Dataset A | Dataset B | Dataset C | |
| CNN | 5 | 4 | 6 |
| CNN-BN | 5 | 4 | 5 |
| CWT-AM-CNN | 6 | 5 | 6 |
| RNN | 980 | 243 | 1151 |
| LSTM | 14 | 4 | 17 |
| AE | 0.025 | 0.025 | 0.026 |
| Feature vector+SVM | 0.08 | 0.01 | 0.12 |
| Feature vector+XGBoost | 0.17 | 0.24 | 0.30 |
| Feature vector+CatBoost | 3.09 | 2.61 | 4.74 |
| Feature vector+AdaBoost | 0.30 | 0.26 | 0.39 |
| Feature vector+Random Forest | 0.48 | 0.44 | 0.56 |
| Feature vector+LightGBM | 0.20 | 0.17 | 0.44 |
| Feature vector+Neural Networks | 0.29 | 0.31 | 0.85 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).