Page 47 - AJWEP-v22i3
P. 47

SpillNet CNN model for oil spill detection

                the  existing  models  in  oil  spill  classification  and   employed due to its effective dark spot segmentation,
                segmentation tasks.                                 which enhanced the feature extraction process, resulting
                  Figures 4 and 5 display a comparative analysis of the   in a high accuracy of SpillNet for dark spot classification.
                accuracy of the different models employed in this study,   The  model  segmented  the  SAR images  into  super-
                highlighting the superior performance of SpillNet.  pixel  patches  and  performed  classification  based  on
                  Figure 6 shows the predicted areas of oil spills using   the extracted features. Areas with deep dark spots were
                the SpillNet model. Using the proposed CNN SpillNet   identified as oil spill regions, while areas with light dark
                model, the dark spots were identified, segmented, and   spots were classified as look-alike areas. The developed
                classified. This model outperformed other CNN models   SpillNet CNN model was able to differentiate between


                                       1
                                      0.9
                                      0.8
                                Performance value  0.6
                                      0.7
                                      0.5
                                      0.4
                                      0.3
                                      0.2
                                      0.1
                                       0
                                             Linknet      FPN        PSPNet       Unet       Spillnet
                                 Accuracy   0.919029     0.90936     0.92469    0.936947    0.946947
                                 Mean IoU    0.46909    0.473193    0.508106    0.481241    0.581241
                                 Error rate  0.081971    0.09064     0.07531    0.063053    0.061053
                                                                Models employed
                                                    Accuracy   Mean IoU   Error rate

                Figure 4. Comparative analysis of the accuracy, mean Intersection over Union, and error rates of the different
                models
                Abbreviations: FPN: Feature Pyramid Network; PSPNet: Pyramid Scene Parsing Network.


                                                1
                                              0.9
                                              0.8
                                              0.7
                                 Performance value  0.5
                                              0.6

                                              0.4
                                              0.3
                                              0.2
                                              0.1
                                                0
                                                     Linknet    FPN      PSPNet     Unet      Spillnet
                                  Mean precision    0.587804  0.552293   0.60834   0.613542  0.623542
                                  Mean recall       0.54806   0.566916  0.587413   0.541559  0.571559
                                  Mean pixel accuracy  0.54606  0.566916  0.587413  0.541559  0.59806
                                  Mean specificity  0.922446  0.923545  0.936614   0.924469  0.944469
                                                                     Models employed
                                    Mean precision  Mean recall  Mean pixel accuracy  Mean specificity
                         Figure 5. Comparative analysis of the mean performance metrics of the different models
                        Abbreviations: FPN: Feature Pyramid Network; PSPNet: Pyramid Scene Parsing Network.



                Volume 22 Issue 3 (2025)                        41                                 doi: 10.36922/ajwep.8282
   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52