Pixel-Level Analysis for Enhancing Threat Detection in Large-Scale X-ray Security Images

Threat detection in X-ray security images is critical for preserving public safety. Recently, deep learning algorithms have begun to be adopted for threat detection tasks in X-ray security images. However, most of the prior works in this field have largely focused on using image-level classification...

Description complète

Enregistré dans:
Détails bibliographiques
Auteurs principaux: Joanna Kazzandra Dumagpi, Yong-Jin Jeong
Format: article
Langue:EN
Publié: MDPI AG 2021
Sujets:
T
Accès en ligne:https://doaj.org/article/d9b2c6f96ee047ee9290f62a77c0a293
Tags: Ajouter un tag
Pas de tags, Soyez le premier à ajouter un tag!
Description
Résumé:Threat detection in X-ray security images is critical for preserving public safety. Recently, deep learning algorithms have begun to be adopted for threat detection tasks in X-ray security images. However, most of the prior works in this field have largely focused on using image-level classification and object-level detection approaches. Adopting object separation as a pixel-level approach to analyze X-ray security images can significantly improve automatic threat detection. In this paper, we investigated the effects of incorporating segmentation deep learning models in the threat detection pipeline of a large-scale imbalanced X-ray dataset. We trained a Faster R-CNN (region-based convolutional neural network) model to localize possible threat regions in the X-ray security images on a balanced dataset to maximize detection of true positives. Then, we trained a DeepLabV3+ model to verify the preliminary detections by classifying each pixel in the threat regions, which resulted in the suppression of false positives. The two models were combined in one detection pipeline to produce the final detections. Experiment results demonstrate that the proposed method significantly outperformed previous baseline methods and end-to-end instance segmentation methods, achieving mean average precisions (m<i>AP</i>s) of 94.88%, 91.40%, and 89.42% across increasing scales of imbalance in the practical dataset.