Cited by 63Underwater Acoustics ResearchUnderwater Vehicles and Communication SystemsDirection-of-Arrival Estimation Techniques

Acoustic Classification of Surface and Underwater Vessels in the Ocean Using Supervised Machine Learning

Open access
Choi, Jongkwon, Choo, Youngmin, Lee, Keunhwa·2019·Sensors

Abstract

Four data-driven methods—random forest (RF), support vector machine (SVM), feed-forward neural network (FNN), and convolutional neural network (CNN)—are applied to discriminate surface and underwater vessels in the ocean using low-frequency acoustic pressure data. Acoustic data are modeled considering a vertical line array by a Monte Carlo simulation using the underwater acoustic propagation model, KRAKEN, in the ocean environment of East Sea in Korea. The raw data are preprocessed and reorganized into the phone-space cross-spectral density matrix (pCSDM) and mode-space cross-spectral density matrix (mCSDM). Two additional matrices are generated using the absolute values of matrix elements in each CSDM. Each of these four matrices is used as input data for supervised machine learning. Binary classification is performed by using RF, SVM, FNN, and CNN, and the obtained results are compared. All machine-learning algorithms show an accuracy of >95% for three types of input data—the pCSDM, mCSDM, and mCSDM with the absolute matrix elements. The CNN is the best in terms of low percent error. In particular, the result using the complex pCSDM is encouraging because these data-driven methods inherently do not require environmental information. This work demonstrates the potential of machine learning to discriminate between surface and underwater vessels in the ocean.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/s19163492

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Results in [6] suggest that phone-spaced data inputs are more suitable to ML methods than mode space, as the former are independent from environmental information.

    “Additionally, results suggest that phone-spaced data inputs are more suitable to ML methods than mode space, as the former are independent from environmental information.”

    From A Survey of Underwater Acoustic Data Classification Methods Using Deep Learning for Shoreline Surveillance (2022) · cites this paper as [6]

    The Discussion and Conclusions (section 5) says complex phone-space data performed comparably to complex mode-space data without requiring a priori ocean-environment information. But Classification Results (section 4.4) says absolute phone-space data performed worst, so the paper does not establish that phone-space inputs are generally more suitable for ML than mode-space inputs. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In an experiment using synthetic data from the KRAKEN normal-mode propagation model, the convolutional model produced the best accuracy results but showed high variability with respect to input data representation, whereas the feed-forward neural network was not affected.

    “The convolutional model produced the best accuracy results; however, it also showed high variability with respect to the input data representation (where a phone-space representation presented as a more suitable input type, as discussed in Section 3), whereas the FNN was not affected.”

    From A Survey of Underwater Acoustic Data Classification Methods Using Deep Learning for Shoreline Surveillance (2022) · cites this paper as [6]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • All algorithms in [6] presented excellent performance, with an error rate below 5%.

    “All algorithms presented excellent performance, with an error rate below 5%.”
  • The results reported in [6] confirm that the proposed machine-learning methods were robust with respect to SNR.

    “The results reported confirm that the proposed machine-learning methods were robust with respect to SNR.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [4]Tolstoy A. Matched Field Processing for Underwater Acoustics World Scientific Hackensack, NJ, USA 1992 1 212 9810210590
  2. [17]Goodfellow I. Bengio Y. Courville A. Deep Learning The MIT Press London, UK 2016 321 359 9780262035613
  3. [19]Russell S. Norvig P. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach 3rd ed. Prentice Hall London, UK 2010 1 59 0-13-604259-7

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Choi, J., Choo, Y., & Lee, K.
Affiliations
Sejong University (KR)
Corresponding author
Lee, Keunhwa
Venue
Sensors
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2019-08-09
Volume
19
Issue
16
Pages
3492
ISSN
1424-8220 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2969080949
Cited by
63
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 3
FWCI
3.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Sensors (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Research Foundation of Korea (2019R1F1A1059146)
  • Agency for Defense Development (UD160015DD)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Oceanography › Underwater Acoustics Research
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Ocean Engineering › Underwater Vehicles and Communication Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Direction-of-Arrival Estimation Techniques
Keywords
surface ships, underwater vessels, cross-spectral density matrix, vertical line array, Monte Carlo simulation, convolutional neural networks, random forest, support vector machine, feedforward neural networks, Sea of Japan

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