Cargando…
Comparison of Different Image Data Augmentation Approaches
Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have gained prominence in the research literature on image classification over the last decade. One shortcoming of CNNs, however, is their lack of generalizability and tendency to overfit when presented with small training sets. Augmentation directly confronts th...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8707550/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34940721 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jimaging7120254 |
_version_ | 1784622463892586496 |
---|---|
author | Nanni, Loris Paci, Michelangelo Brahnam, Sheryl Lumini, Alessandra |
author_facet | Nanni, Loris Paci, Michelangelo Brahnam, Sheryl Lumini, Alessandra |
author_sort | Nanni, Loris |
collection | PubMed |
description | Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have gained prominence in the research literature on image classification over the last decade. One shortcoming of CNNs, however, is their lack of generalizability and tendency to overfit when presented with small training sets. Augmentation directly confronts this problem by generating new data points providing additional information. In this paper, we investigate the performance of more than ten different sets of data augmentation methods, with two novel approaches proposed here: one based on the discrete wavelet transform and the other on the constant-Q Gabor transform. Pretrained ResNet50 networks are finetuned on each augmentation method. Combinations of these networks are evaluated and compared across four benchmark data sets of images representing diverse problems and collected by instruments that capture information at different scales: a virus data set, a bark data set, a portrait dataset, and a LIGO glitches data set. Experiments demonstrate the superiority of this approach. The best ensemble proposed in this work achieves state-of-the-art (or comparable) performance across all four data sets. This result shows that varying data augmentation is a feasible way for building an ensemble of classifiers for image classification. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8707550 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-87075502021-12-25 Comparison of Different Image Data Augmentation Approaches Nanni, Loris Paci, Michelangelo Brahnam, Sheryl Lumini, Alessandra J Imaging Article Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have gained prominence in the research literature on image classification over the last decade. One shortcoming of CNNs, however, is their lack of generalizability and tendency to overfit when presented with small training sets. Augmentation directly confronts this problem by generating new data points providing additional information. In this paper, we investigate the performance of more than ten different sets of data augmentation methods, with two novel approaches proposed here: one based on the discrete wavelet transform and the other on the constant-Q Gabor transform. Pretrained ResNet50 networks are finetuned on each augmentation method. Combinations of these networks are evaluated and compared across four benchmark data sets of images representing diverse problems and collected by instruments that capture information at different scales: a virus data set, a bark data set, a portrait dataset, and a LIGO glitches data set. Experiments demonstrate the superiority of this approach. The best ensemble proposed in this work achieves state-of-the-art (or comparable) performance across all four data sets. This result shows that varying data augmentation is a feasible way for building an ensemble of classifiers for image classification. MDPI 2021-11-27 /pmc/articles/PMC8707550/ /pubmed/34940721 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jimaging7120254 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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/). |
spellingShingle | Article Nanni, Loris Paci, Michelangelo Brahnam, Sheryl Lumini, Alessandra Comparison of Different Image Data Augmentation Approaches |
title | Comparison of Different Image Data Augmentation Approaches |
title_full | Comparison of Different Image Data Augmentation Approaches |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Different Image Data Augmentation Approaches |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Different Image Data Augmentation Approaches |
title_short | Comparison of Different Image Data Augmentation Approaches |
title_sort | comparison of different image data augmentation approaches |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8707550/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34940721 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jimaging7120254 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT nanniloris comparisonofdifferentimagedataaugmentationapproaches AT pacimichelangelo comparisonofdifferentimagedataaugmentationapproaches AT brahnamsheryl comparisonofdifferentimagedataaugmentationapproaches AT luminialessandra comparisonofdifferentimagedataaugmentationapproaches |