4.5 Article

Timber Knot Detector with Low False-Positive Results by Integrating an Overlapping Bounding Box Filter with Faster R-CNN Algorithm

期刊

BIORESOURCES
卷 18, 期 3, 页码 4964-4976

出版社

NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV DEPT WOOD & PAPER SCI
DOI: 10.15376/biores.18.3.4964-4976

关键词

Timber knot detection; Faster R-CNN; False positive results; Overlapping bounding box filter

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A framework for timber knot detection is proposed in this study. Faster R-CNN algorithm is employed for detecting timber knots, and an overlapping bounding box filter is proposed to reduce the false positive frequency. The experimental results showed an improvement in detection precision from 90.9% to 97.5% by filtering the overlapping bounding box. This framework is competitive and has potential applications for timber grading.
Knot detection is an important aspect of timber grading. Reducing the false-positive frequency of knot detection will improve the accuracy of the predicted grade, as well as the utilization of the graded timber. In this study, a framework for timber knot detection was proposed. Faster R-CNN, a state-of-the-art defect identification algorithm, was first employed to detect timber knots because of its high true-positive frequency. Then, an overlapping bounding box filter was proposed to lower the false positive frequency achieved by Faster R-CNN, where a single knot is sometimes marked several times. The filter merges the overlapping bounding boxes for one actual knot into one box and ensures that each knot is marked only once. The main advantage of this framework is that it reduces the false positive frequency with a small computational cost and a small impact on the true positive frequency. The experimental results showed that the detection precision improved from 90.9% to 97.5% by filtering the overlapping bounding box. The framework proposed in this study is competitive and has potential applications for detecting timber knots for timber grading.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据