Article Search
닫기

Original Article

Split Viewer

International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems 2022; 22(3): 223-232

Published online September 25, 2022

https://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2022.22.3.223

© The Korean Institute of Intelligent Systems

Comparison of Deep Learning-Based Object Classification Methods for Detecting Tomato Ripeness

Dheo Prasetyo Nugroho, Sigit Widiyanto, and Dini Tri Wardani

Department of Information System Management, Gunadarma University, Depok, Indonesia

Correspondence to :
Dheo Prasetyo Nugroho (dheoprasetyo.dp@gmail.com)

Received: February 21, 2022; Revised: April 3, 2022; Accepted: June 7, 2022

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Examination of the technological development in agriculture reveals that not many applications use cameras to detect tomato ripeness; therefore, tomato maturity is still determined manually. Currently, technological advances and developments are occurring rapidly, and are, therefore, also inseparable from the agricultural sector. Object detection can help determining tomato ripeness. In this research, faster region-based convolutional neural network (Faster R-CNN), single shot multibox detector (SSD), and you only look once (YOLO) models were tested to recognize or detect tomato ripeness using input images. The model training process required 5 hours and produced a total loss value <0.5, and as the total loss became smaller, the predicted results improved. Tests were conducted on a training dataset, and average accuracy values of 99.55%, 89.3%, and 94.6% were achieved using the Faster R-CNN, SSD, and YOLO models, respectively.

Keywords: SSD, Faster R-CNN, YOLO, Object detection

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Dheo Prasetyo Nugroho received his bachelor’s degree from Departemen Informatics Engineering, Gunadarma University, Indonesia. His research interests are deep earning and software engineering.

E-mail: dheoprasetyo.dp@gmail.com

Sigit Widiyanto received his bachelor’s degree in Software Engineering in 2010 and master’s degree in Management of Information System in 2011 from Gunadarma University. He acquired a double degree in Computer Vision in 2012 from University of Burgundi, France. He received his doctoral degree in Information Technology in 2017 from Gunadarma University. His research interests are artificial intelligence, IoT, computer vision, and big data analytics.

E-mail: sigitwidiyanto@staff.gunadarma.ac.id

Dini Tri Wardani received her bachelor’s degree in Accounting Management in 2010 and master’s degree in Management of Information System in 2012 from Gunadarma University. Her research interests are software engineering, system design, accounting, and management of information system.

E-mail: dinitri@staff.gunadarma.ac.id

Article

Original Article

International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems 2022; 22(3): 223-232

Published online September 25, 2022 https://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2022.22.3.223

Copyright © The Korean Institute of Intelligent Systems.

Comparison of Deep Learning-Based Object Classification Methods for Detecting Tomato Ripeness

Dheo Prasetyo Nugroho, Sigit Widiyanto, and Dini Tri Wardani

Department of Information System Management, Gunadarma University, Depok, Indonesia

Correspondence to:Dheo Prasetyo Nugroho (dheoprasetyo.dp@gmail.com)

Received: February 21, 2022; Revised: April 3, 2022; Accepted: June 7, 2022

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Examination of the technological development in agriculture reveals that not many applications use cameras to detect tomato ripeness; therefore, tomato maturity is still determined manually. Currently, technological advances and developments are occurring rapidly, and are, therefore, also inseparable from the agricultural sector. Object detection can help determining tomato ripeness. In this research, faster region-based convolutional neural network (Faster R-CNN), single shot multibox detector (SSD), and you only look once (YOLO) models were tested to recognize or detect tomato ripeness using input images. The model training process required 5 hours and produced a total loss value <0.5, and as the total loss became smaller, the predicted results improved. Tests were conducted on a training dataset, and average accuracy values of 99.55%, 89.3%, and 94.6% were achieved using the Faster R-CNN, SSD, and YOLO models, respectively.

Keywords: SSD, Faster R-CNN, YOLO, Object detection

Fig 1.

Figure 1.

Faster R-CNN architecture.

The International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems 2022; 22: 223-232https://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2022.22.3.223

Fig 2.

Figure 2.

SSD architecture.

The International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems 2022; 22: 223-232https://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2022.22.3.223

Fig 3.

Figure 3.

YOLO architecture.

The International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems 2022; 22: 223-232https://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2022.22.3.223

Fig 4.

Figure 4.

Image classification, localization, and object detection.

The International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems 2022; 22: 223-232https://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2022.22.3.223

Fig 5.

Figure 5.

Research methodology.

The International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems 2022; 22: 223-232https://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2022.22.3.223

Fig 6.

Figure 6.

Image dataset.

The International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems 2022; 22: 223-232https://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2022.22.3.223

Fig 7.

Figure 7.

Flowchart annotation process.

The International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems 2022; 22: 223-232https://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2022.22.3.223

Fig 8.

Figure 8.

Annotation process.

The International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems 2022; 22: 223-232https://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2022.22.3.223

Fig 9.

Figure 9.

Image annotation results using Faster R-CNN, SSD (left), and YOLO (right).

The International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems 2022; 22: 223-232https://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2022.22.3.223

Fig 10.

Figure 10.

Flowchart of Faster RCNN training process.

The International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems 2022; 22: 223-232https://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2022.22.3.223

Fig 11.

Figure 11.

Architecture of Faster R-CNN.

The International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems 2022; 22: 223-232https://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2022.22.3.223

Fig 12.

Figure 12.

SSD architecture.

The International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems 2022; 22: 223-232https://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2022.22.3.223

Fig 13.

Figure 13.

Flowchart of YOLO training process.

The International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems 2022; 22: 223-232https://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2022.22.3.223

Fig 14.

Figure 14.

YOLO architecture.

The International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems 2022; 22: 223-232https://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2022.22.3.223

Fig 15.

Figure 15.

Image prediction flowchart.

The International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems 2022; 22: 223-232https://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2022.22.3.223

Fig 16.

Figure 16.

Training process on Google Colaboratory.

The International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems 2022; 22: 223-232https://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2022.22.3.223

Fig 17.

Figure 17.

Total losses using (a) Faster R-CNN, (b) SSD, and (c) YOLO models.

The International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems 2022; 22: 223-232https://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2022.22.3.223

Fig 18.

Figure 18.

Detection result.

The International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems 2022; 22: 223-232https://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2022.22.3.223

Fig 19.

Figure 19.

Test result using webcam.

The International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems 2022; 22: 223-232https://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2022.22.3.223

Table 1 . Image data collection.

ImageNumber of images
Ripe tomatoes100
Half-ripe tomatoes100
Half-unripe tomatoes100
Unripe tomatoes100

Table 2 . mAP results.

ModelmAP
Faster R-CNN0.908
SSD0.858
YOLO0.778

Table 3 . Results of training.

ImageFaster R-CNNSSDYOLO
Half-ripe1100 %78%100%
Half-ripe2100%97%100%
Half-ripe3100%100%99%
Half-ripe499%65%100%
Half-ripe5100%99%99%
Half-unripe198%62%63%
Half-unripe2100%97%93%
Half-unripe3100%80%53%
Half-unripe498%98%99%
Half-unripe5100%98%95%
Ripe1100%100%100%
Ripe2100%97%99%
Ripe3100%98%97%
Ripe4100%98%100%
Ripe599%51%98%
Unripe199%83%100%
Unripe2100%100%98%
Unripe399%100%100%
Unripe499%87%100%
Unripe5100%98%99%

Table 4 . Detection speed.

ResolutionFaster R-CNNSSDYOLO
1024 × 7200.58 fps4.53 fps2.23 fps
720 × 4800.63 fps5.24 fps2.67 fps

Share this article on :

Related articles in IJFIS