Impact of Pre-trained Weights on MobileNet Architectures for Animal Classification

Authors

  • Yusen Shi

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61173/6w4c5526

Keywords:

Animal classification, MobileNet comparison, pre-trained weights

Abstract

This study aims to address the problem of improving animal image classification accuracy using different versions of MobileNet. Accurate animal classification plays a vital role in biodiversity protection, environmental monitoring, and agriculture. The research is significant because existing studies focus on specific models and datasets, leaving a gap in the comparative performance analysis of MobileNet versions. To address this issue, MobileNet V1, V2, and V3 models were utilized, both with and without ImageNet pre-trained weights. The models were trained on a dataset composed of 30,179 images from two sources, covering 13 animal categories. The experiment involved training the models over 10 epochs using a standard configuration of the TensorFlow framework, with accuracy serving as the primary evaluation metric.The results showed that MobileNet V3Large, with pre-trained weights, achieved the highest accuracy (97.43%), outperforming V1 and V2. Using pre-trained weights consistently enhanced performance, as models without pre-training exhibited lower accuracy and slower convergence. This study contributes by providing a comprehensive comparison of MobileNet versions in animal classification tasks, demonstrating the importance of pre-training and model architecture optimization for achieving high accuracy in image classification.

References

[1] Litjens G, Kooi T, Bejnordi BE, Setio AA, Ciompi F, Ghafoorian M, Van Der Laak JA, Van Ginneken B, Sánchez CI. A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis. Medical image analysis. 2017 Dec 1;42:60-88.

[2] Grigorescu S, Trasnea B, Cocias T, Macesanu G. A survey of deep learning techniques for autonomous driving. Journal of field robotics. 2020 Apr;37(3):362-86.

[3] Bosch A, Zisserman A, Munoz X. Image classification using random forests and ferns. In2007 IEEE 11th international conference on computer vision 2007 Oct 14 (pp. 1-8). Ieee.

[4] Rawat W, Wang Z. Deep convolutional neural networks for image classification: A comprehensive review. Neural computation. 2017 Aug 24;29(9):2352-449.

[5] Khasim S, Basha SS. Brain Tumor Identification and Classification System Using Convolutional Neural Network. International Journal of Health Sciences.(II):7264-75.

[6] Meng S, Chu WT. A study of garbage classification with convolutional neural networks. In2020 indo–taiwan 2nd international conference on computing, analytics and networks (indo-taiwan ican) 2020 Feb 7 (pp. 152-157). IEEE.

[7] Nguyen H, Maclagan SJ, Nguyen TD, Nguyen T, Flemons P, Andrews K, Ritchie EG, Phung D. Animal recognition and identification with deep convolutional neural networks for automated wildlife monitoring. In2017 IEEE international conference on data science and advanced Analytics (DSAA) 2017 Oct 19 (pp. 40-49). IEEE.

[8] Wang X, Li P, Zhu C. Classification of wildlife based on transfer learning. InProceedings of the 2020 4th International Conference on Video and Image Processing 2020 Dec 25 (pp. 236-240).

[9] Howard AG. Mobilenets: Efficient convolutional neural networks for mobile vision applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.04861. 2017.

[10] Sandler M, Howard A, Zhu M, Zhmoginov A, Chen LC. Mobilenetv2: Inverted residuals and linear bottlenecks. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition 2018 (pp. 4510-4520).

[11] Howard A, Sandler M, Chu G, Chen LC, Chen B, Tan M, Wang W, Zhu Y, Pang R, Vasudevan V, Le QV. Searching for mobilenetv3. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision 2019 (pp. 1314-1324).

[12] Kaggle, Animal Classification, 2022, https://www.kaggle. com/datasets/ayushv322/animal-classification

[13] Kaggle, Animals10, 2019, https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/ alessiocorrado99/animals10

Downloads

Published

2024-10-29