3.2. Experiments and Evaluation
We compared the SRSe-Net with traditional green tide extraction methods, including the NDVI, the RVI, the Support Vector Machine algorithm (SVM) [
30], the Classification And Regression Tree (CART), and the Random Forest algorithm (RF). The main idea of the SVM is finding a separation hyperplane with maximum margin and mapping training samples that cannot be linearly separated in low-dimensional space to a high-dimensional space to make them linearly separable [
31]. In addition, we also compared the SRSe-Net with the SegNet [
32] and U-Net [
33]. Multiple test images with different distribution characteristics were selected, including the concentrated green tide areas (test images 1 and 2) and the scattered green tide areas (test images 3 and 4). The qualitative and quantitative results of green tide extraction by different methods are given.
The recognition results are shown in
Figure 6,
Figure 7,
Figure 8 and
Figure 9. In these figures, (a) is the low-resolution MODIS image used for testing, (b) is the super-resolution reconstructed MODIS image, and (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) are the segmentation results produced by several traditional green tide extraction methods: NDVI, RVI, SVM, RF, and CART, respectively. Among them, for
Figure 6 and
Figure 7, through multiple experiments on the test image, the best thresholds obtained by the NDVI and RVI are 0.36 and 0.36, respectively. For
Figure 8, the thresholds of the NDVI and RVI are set to 0.53 and 0.56, respectively. For
Figure 9, the thresholds of the NDVI and RVI are set to 0.48 and 0.56, respectively. In this figure, (i), (j), (k), and (l) are the segmentation results of the SegNet, U-Net, the proposed Se-Net, and the SRSe-Net, respectively. In these figures, the colors green, red, white, and black, represent the TP, FN, FP, and TN pixels, respectively, in the segmentation results.
Figure 6 shows the qualitative result of test image 1. From the enlarged display of
Figure 6b,
Figure 7b,
Figure 8b and
Figure 9b, it can be seen that the clarity and contrast of the green tide patches after super-resolution processing substantially improved. The boundary between the green tide patch and the surrounding sea became clearer. Compared with the Se-Net, without the integrated super-resolution method, the SRSe-Net integrated with the method produced more accurate segmentation results (red areas are considerably reduced). Among several traditional green tide extraction methods, compared with the RVI and SVM methods, the NDVI method has a relatively better effect on green tide recognition, but compared to the SRSe-Net proposed in this paper, the performance was not ideal. In the segmentation results of the RVI and SVM, the prediction error areas increased substantially. In addition, the SegNet and U-Net methods based on deep learning predicted a large area of the green tide as seawater. At the same time, the areas where seawater was predicted as the green tide (white areas) were also substantially increased, and the segmentation results were poor. The result of test image 2 is similar to that of image 1. Compared with these methods, the SRSe-Net proposed in this paper can not only improve the resolution of the image but can also obtain better segmentation results by reconstructing finer spatial details.
Figure 8 and
Figure 9 show the qualitative results of test images 3 and 4, respectively. The green tide distribution in these two test images was relatively scattered. The RF predicted part of the seawater as the green tide. The other traditional machine learning methods incorrectly predicted the green tide areas with smaller patches as seawater. The SegNet method, which is based on deep learning predicted a large area of seawater as a green tide. Compared with the SegNet, the U-Net method detected the green tide area more accurately in test images with scattered green tide distributions, but its performance was still poor compared with the SRSe-Net method. The recognition results of different test images proved that the SRSe-Net method proposed in this paper has high robustness.
Regarding the quantitative results,
Table 3,
Table 4,
Table 5 and
Table 6 show the corresponding quantitative results produced by different methods in different test images. The different methods are compared in detail using a variety of indicators. It can be seen from the table that the accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score indices of the SRSe-Net proposed in this paper are generally higher than those of the other methods in the test images.
For test image 1, it can be seen from
Table 3 that the methods based on deep learning has a low accuracy rate because the prediction results of these methods contain many red (predicting the green tide as seawater) and white (predicting seawater as the green tide) areas. Because the large area of the green tide is predicted to be seawater, the recall rate is low. The recall rates of the SegNet and U-Net methods are only 35.38% and 39.25%, respectively. The traditional green tide extraction method has a relatively high accuracy, but its performance is not ideal compared with the SRSe-Net method proposed in this paper. The RF and CART methods achieve better results than SRSe-Net in terms of the recall rate, but the accuracy rate is poor because most of the seawater is identified as green tides in these methods. It is worth noting that because the SVM is more sensitive to areas with obvious green tides, or if the SVM only identifies areas with more obvious green tides, it is poorly recognized for areas with inconspicuous green tides, resulting in a higher accuracy rate, reaching 98.59%, while the recall rate is only 37.92%. The accuracy of the segmented subnet Se-Net is 0.14% higher than that of the highest NDVI method. The accuracy of the proposed SRSe-Net is 2.05% higher than that of the NDVI, which is 1.91% higher than the segmented subnet Se-Net, and the recall rate is higher. Compared with other methods, there has been a large improvement. For test image 2, as shown in
Table 4, traditional methods have a higher accuracy rate but a lower recall rate. For instance, the RVI and SVM methods have recall scores of only 39.26% and 22.53%, respectively. The method based on deep learning has the same problem, and the recall rate of the SegNet method is only 28.19%. Compared with several other methods, the accuracy of the segmented subnet Se-Net is not as accurate as the NDVI method with the highest accuracy, but the accuracy of the SRSe-Net is 1.13% higher than that of the NDVI method.
In test image 3, as shown in
Table 5, in the traditional green tide extraction method, most green tide areas are misidentified as seawater, resulting in a low recall rate; in particular, the recall rates of the NDVI and RVI methods are only 30.81% and 29.95%, respectively. As shown in
Figure 10, the traditional methods are more accurate in predicting the areas where green tides exist, which leads to the accuracy of the NDVI and RVI methods reaching 98.90% and 99.43%, respectively. In addition, the method based on deep learning has a relatively high accuracy, but its performance is not ideal compared with the SRSe-Net proposed in this paper. The accuracy of the proposed segmentation subnet Se-Net is 0.86% higher than that of the highest SVM method, the accuracy of the SRSe-Net is 2.17% higher than that of the SVM, and the accuracy of the SRSe-Net is 1.31% higher than that of the segmentation subnet Se-Net. In test image 4, as shown in
Table 6, both the traditional method and the deep learning-based green tide extraction method have a high accuracy and precision, but the recall rate is low. Compared with other methods, the accuracy of the proposed segmentation subnet Se-Net is 1.77% higher than that of the highest CART, and the accuracy of the SRSe-Net is 2.65% higher than that of the highest CART. The accuracy rate of the SRSe-Net is 0.88% higher than that of the segmented subnet Se-Net. Therefore, the detailed results provided in
Table 3,
Table 4,
Table 5 and
Table 6 also prove that the accuracy and robustness of the SRSe-Net method proposed in this paper are considerably higher than those of the other methods and that this method more accurate green tide segmentation results can be obtained.
To further test the robustness of the proposed SRSe-Net, we applied the model to more image data.
Figure 10 shows the recognition results of the SRSe-Net in eight MODIS test images, of which the last four images have not appeared previously. The quantitative results of the test images can be seen in
Table 7. On all of the test images, the SRSe-Net has the highest accuracy of 96.88%, the lowest of 90.73%, the average of 93.13%, the highest F1-score of 0.8942, the lowest of 0.8023, and the average of 0.8558. The above experimental results show that the prediction ability of the SRSe-Net is excellent and reliable.