Cited by 78Underwater Acoustics ResearchWireless Signal Modulation ClassificationNeural Networks and Applications

Deep learning-based recognition of underwater target

Cao, Xu, Zhang, Xiaomin, Yu, Yang, Niu, Letian·2016·2016 IEEE International Conference on Digital Signal Processing (DSP)

Abstract

Underwater target recognition remains a challenging task due to the complex and changeable environment. There have been a huge number of methods to deal with this problem. However, most of them fail to hierarchically extract deep features. In this paper, a novel deep learning framework for underwater target classification is proposed. First, instead of extracting features relying on expert knowledge, sparse autoencoder (AE) is utilized to learn invariant features from the spectral data of underwater targets. Second, stacked autoencoder (SAE) is used to get high-level features as a deep learning method. At last, the joint of SAE and softmax is proposed to classify the underwater targets. Experiment results with the received signal data from three different targets on the sea indicated that the proposed approach can get the highest classification accuracy compared with support vector machine (SVM) and probabilistic neural network (PNN).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/icdsp.2016.7868522

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The auditory-inspired CNN had a high accuracy (87.2%), outperforming a standard CNN (83.2%), a stack of autoencoders (81.4%), wavelet transform with PCA (74.6%), and a support-vector machine (68.2%).

    “The results showed that the proposed auditory-inspired CNN had a high accuracy (87.2%), outperforming a standard CNN (83.2%), a stack of autoencoders [113] (81.4%) and various traditional object recognition algorithms, such as a combination of wavelet transform with PCA [114] (74.6%) and a support-vector machine [115] (68.2%).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 20 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cao, X., Zhang, X., Yu, Y., & Niu, L.
Affiliations
Northwestern Polytechnical University (CN)
Venue
2016 IEEE International Conference on Digital Signal Processing (DSP)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2016-10
Volume
2016
Pages
89-93
OpenAlex
W2594878708
Cited by
78
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 3
FWCI
35.04
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • IEEE International Conference on Digital Signal Processing (DSP) (publishedVersion)
  • IEEE Conference Proceedings
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Oceanography › Underwater Acoustics Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Wireless Signal Modulation Classification
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Neural Networks and Applications
Keywords
underwater target recognition, underwater target classification, sparse autoencoders, stacked autoencoder, deep feature extraction, invariant feature learning, underwater acoustic signals, spectral data, softmax classification

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review