This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal.
Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
IEEE GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING LETTERS
Underwater Acoustic Target Classification Based
on Dense Convolutional Neural Network
Van-Sang Doan , Thien Huynh-The , Member, IEEE,
and Dong-Seong Kim , Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract— In oceanic remote sensing operations, underwater
acoustic target recognition is always a difficult and extremely
important task of sonar systems, especially in the condition of
complex sound wave propagation characteristics. The expensively
learning recognition model for big data analysis is typically an
obstacle for most traditional machine learning (ML) algorithms,
whereas the convolutional neural network (CNN), a type of deep
neural network, can automatically extract features for accurate
classification. In this study, we propose an approach using a dense
CNN model for underwater target recognition. The network
architecture is designed to cleverly reuse all former feature maps
to optimize classification rates under various impaired conditions
while satisfying low computational cost. In addition, instead of
using time–frequency spectrogram images, the proposed scheme
allows directly utilizing the original audio signal in the time
domain as the network input data. Based on the experimental
results evaluated on the real-world data set of passive sonar, our
classification model achieves the overall accuracy of 98.85% at
0-dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and outperforms traditional ML
techniques, as well as other state-of-the-art CNN models.
Index Terms— Convolutional neural network (CNN), network
architecture, sonar system, underwater target recognition.
I. I NTRODUCTION
I N THE underwater environment, vessel propellers, marine
animals (mammals), and other ambient entities emit
acoustic signals with various properties, which become useful
signatures for recognition. Accordingly, passive sonar systems
hear the sound to identify and classify surrounding objects
for navigation, surveillance, or other important purposes [1].
Up to date, the classification process is mostly carried out
by sonar operators who can reidentify the interesting sound
whenever emitted by the ship’s propeller [2]. However, this
process can be failed in the impaired conditions of low signal-
to-noise ratio (SNR) and multipath of sound propagation.
Despite being imperative and crucial, human resources training
is an expensive time–cost-consuming procedure. For many
Manuscript received June 29, 2020; revised August 25, 2020; accepted
October 3, 2020. This work was supported in part by the National Research
Foundation (NRF), South Korea, through the International Cooperation Pro-
gram under Grant 2019K2A9A1A09081533 and in part by NRF, South Korea,
through the Priority Research Centers Program funded by the Ministry of
Education, Science and Technology under Grant 2018R1A6A1A03024003.
(Corresponding author: Dong-Seong Kim.)
The authors are with the ICT Convergence Research Center, Kumoh
National Institute of Technology, Gumi 39177, South Korea, and also
with the Department of IT Convergence, Kumoh National Institute of
Technology, Gumi 39177, South Korea (e-mail: doansang.g1@gmail.com;
thienht@kumoh.ac.kr; dskim@kumoh.ac.kr).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this letter are available
online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/LGRS.2020.3029584
1545-598X © 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
1
years, the underwater acoustic (UA) signal classification has
been developed through expertly processing of such hand-
crafted characteristics as temporal and spectral properties;
however, their efficiency heavily affects the final performance
of the sonar system. In order to handle this issue, many
feature extraction techniques have been studied for seizing
propeller acoustic characteristics, which are categorized into
three groups: time [3], frequency [4], and time–frequency
combination domains [5]. Inspired by human auditory per-
ception, the time–frequency analysis techniques, which are
more suitable for nonstationary signals, are widely used for
UA signal classification. For example, Zeng and Wang [6]
studied the Bark-wavelet analysis and the Hilbert–Huang
transform for the frequency decomposition of UA signal and
the signal reconstruction from instantaneous frequency and
amplitude, respectively. In the last decade, several machine
learning (ML) algorithms of classification have been widely
utilized to improve accuracy. Zhang et al. [7] investigated
19 conventional classifiers, including decision tree (DT), sup-
port vector machine (SVM), and k-nearest neighbor (KNN),
for modeling up to 16 UA targets using gammatone fre-
quency cepstrum coefficient (GFCC) and further deliver-
ing an accuracy comparison with mel-frequency cepstrum
coefficient (MFCC), autoregression (AR), and zero-crossing
(ZC). Despite being better than other feature descriptors,
GFCC takes more expensive time-consuming. To improve
the accuracy of UA target classification on a small-scale
data set, Ke et al. [8] studied a novel supervised feature-
separation algorithm to fine-tune the deep features extracted by
1-D convolutional autoencoder–decoder model. The approach,
although satisfying recognition rate, reveals some drawbacks,
for instance, the high complexity of the discrete Fourier
transform (DFT) for domain transformation and sensitive
performance under additive noise conditions. Recently, deep
learning (DL), which has greatly achieved outstanding per-
formance in wide-ranging research areas, from computer
vision to bioinformatics [9], is being attracted for UA signal
classification. For example, Wang et al. [10] deployed a
deep neural network (DNN) to learn the fusion feature of
GFCC and modified empirical mode decomposition (MEMD),
in which the network has a Gaussian mixture model (GMM)
layer to improve recognition rate by reducing redundant fea-
tures. In another work [11], a multimodal DL method for
ship recognition based on ship-radiated sound is investigated,
in which the deep features simultaneously extracted from
auditory and visual modalities are fused at an intermediate
level to promisingly improve sonar systems more accurately
and reliably. Nevertheless, this approach occupies expensively
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
2 IEEE GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING LETTERS
Fig. 1. Overall passive sonar system for underwater sound surveillance.
computational cost besides the prerequisite of multimodal
synchronization [12].
In this work, we propose an efficient approach of UA
signal classification, wherein a dense convolutional neural
network (CNN) is cleverly designed to automatically learn-
ing representative features without the expert knowledge of
feature engineering and domain transformation. Concretely,
the network architecture with the skip-connection technique
allows reusing all former feature maps extracted at multiscale
representations, which prevents the network from the gradient
vanishing problem caused by stacking many sequential con-
volution and activation in a deep network. Besides, the CNN-
based classifier satisfies the constraint on low complexity
with an adaptive structure that can reduce the number of
learnable parameters. Through the performance evaluation of
our real-world data set recorded by a passive sonar system,
the proposed CNN-based classifier reaches the classification
rate of up to 98.85% at 0-dB SNR and further defeats other
existing ML and CNN models in an accuracy competition.
II. P ROPOSED M ETHOD
For UA signal classification, this research studies a deep
CNN with dense architecture, namely underwater acoustic
target classification DenseNet (UATC-DenseNet), to recognize
12 classes of UA signal. For details, the data set of UA
signals is acquired by a passive sonar served as an underwater
surveillance system whose implementation framework with
components is accordingly shown in Fig. 1. The surveil-
lance system consists of two parts, underwater equipment
and ground equipment, which are communicated to each
other by a fiber cable. The underwater components include
three hydrophones for receiving and converting UA signal to
electrical form, one preprocessing unit for transforming the
signal from analog to digital, and one fiber transmitter for
data conversion from electrical to optical transmission. On the
ground, a fiber receiver performs reconverting data from opti-
cal to local area network (LAN) transmission. Subsequently,
the signal data are stored in a multistore device that is equipped
with three hard drive disks (HDD). The multistore has a switch
that allows the surveillance system to read and analyze the
real-time signal or the stored data set.
Inspired by the network fundamentally introduced for image
classification [13], UATC-DenseNet is leveraged with a com-
pact architecture, as presented in Fig. 2(a), to be compatible
with the input of 1-D time-series data, such as acoustic signal.
As a data preprocessing, the continuous acoustic signal in the
time domain is partitioned into multiple frames with a size of
1 × 4096 samples. It is worth noting that data normalization
is optional to avoid the bias caused by different configurations
Fig. 2. Architecture of UATC-DenseNet for UA target classification. (a) Full
network model and (b) components in a conv-block.
of the sonar system. At the beginning of the network, the input
layer is followed by a batch normalization layer to facilitate
the optimization procedure during the training stage. This layer
normalizes in value for its input x(i ) by the mean μ and
variance σ 2 over a minibatch and each input channel
x(i ) − μ
x̂(i ) = √ (1)
σ2 + 
where  = 10−5 refers to as a constant factor to ensure
numerical stability and avoid division by zero.
With regard to the network architecture, UATC-DenseNet
is organized by stacking several convolutional blocks, denoted
conv-block, where each conv-block consists of convolutional,
max-pooling, and activation layers, as described in Fig. 2(b).
For detailed configuration, the convolutional layer is assigned
with 32 1-D kernels of size 1 × 7 to generate 32 feature
maps correspondingly. The product of convolution operation
is formulated by the following equation with the input x̂ and
the convolution coefficients c:

y(i ) = conv(x̂, c) = x̂(i )c(i ) + b (2)
i
where b is the scalar bias. The spatial pooling is then adopted
for downsampling the output feature map y by removing the
presence of weak features, wherein a max-pooling layer is
configured with the pool size of 1 × 3. The output ypool of
max-pooling layer can be written as follows:
ypool(i ) = max{y(i − 1), y(i ), y(i + 1)}. (3)
By specifying the stride of (1, 2), the horizontal dimension of
ypool is halved to reduce the computational volume of many
latter layers.
The max-pooling layer is followed by an activation layer in
the network architecture that typically plays a crucial role in
CNNs. The rectified linear unit (ReLU) function is commonly
taken into account in many well-known CNN architectures
due to fast convergence. However, it reveals an obstacle of
information vanishing for the input less than zero, whereas
the exponential linear unit (eLU) function can promisingly
overcome the problem to train the network more effectively.
The eLU layer performs the identity operation on the positive
inputs and the exponential nonlinearity on the negative ones,
which is generally given as follows:

x, if x ≥ 0
h(x) = (4)
α(e x − 1), if x < 0.
It is noticed that the input of activation function is the
feature map ypool after pooling. Regarding the overall archi-
tecture, UATC-DenseNet has a backbone flow and several
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
DOAN et al.: UA TARGET CLASSIFICATION BASED ON DENSE CNN
skip-connections. The flow is stacked by three conv-blocks
for deep feature extraction; meanwhile, skip-connections are
cleverly studied to facilitate the gradient flow throughout the
network going deeper. Compared with some conventional
CNNs, the skip-connection allows optimizing the utilization
of feature maps extracted in many former conv-blocks and
also protecting the network against the vanishing gradient
problem. Generally, three widely used mechanisms of skip-
connection are addition operation, sidewise concatenation, and
depth concatenation. The addition operation is intensively
studied in the well-known ResNet [14], wherein different
feature maps with the same volume are combined via the
elementwise addition. In another mechanism, the sidewise
concatenation operation joints several feature maps along
either the horizontal or the vertical dimensions. Unlike the
sidewise concatenation that expands the spatial dimension of
output, the depth concatenation merges the input feature maps
in the depth dimension. In the comparison of computational
complexity, the depth concatenation is more appropriate than
the sidewise concatenation for deployment in this study. Since
the skip-connections are structured at different scaling feature
representations, the max-pooling layers are, therefore, assem-
bled to rescale the spatial dimension of former feature maps
to properly fit the volume size of backbone flow, where the
output is denoted by ymaxpool . Let yblock refers to as the output
of each conv-block; hence, the concatenation can be expressed
as follows:
zconcat = concat{ymaxpool, yblock }.
According this mechanism, at the last concatenation, the out-
put involves the feature of backbone (i.e., the last conv-block)
and the normalized information of former conv-blocks. At
the end of network architecture, UATC-DenseNet is finalized
with an output block including an average pooling layer with
the pool size of 1 × 8 and the stride of (1, 8), an eLU
activation layer, a fully connected layer, a softmax layer,
and an output layer (also known as classification layer). The
average pooling layer is configured to compound all highly
discriminative features instead of only picking up the max
values. Besides, the fully connected layer is specified with
12 neurons corresponding to 12 target classes for classification.
The output of a fully connected layer is followed by a softmax
layer and a classification layer, where the softmax function is
formulated to produce decimal probabilities in the cooperation
with the classes of UA targets. Assume that the output feature
vector of the fully connected layer is presented by r (x), and
the output of softmax function can be written as follows:
eri (x)
pi (x) = softmax{ri (x)} =  r (x) .
je
j
Finally, UATC-DenseNet predicts the target of an incoming
UA signal x regarding the class having the highest probability
Predicted_UAT(x) = arg{max(pi (x))}.
III. DATA S ET D ESCRIPTION
For performance experiments, a data set involving 11 UA
signals (corresponding to 11 targets for recognition) and one
noisy blank signal (that means an ambient sound without
3
target detection) is recorded by a passive sonar system at the
sampling rate of 22 050 Hz. All signals are labeled by a sonar
expert who spends many years at work of target detection
and reidentification using acoustic-based sonar systems. To
challenge classification models, the signals have borne an
additive synthetic noise with SNR (referred to as the ratio of
the average power of received signal per the power of noise)
spreading in the range of [−20, 10] dB with the step size
of 2 dB. As a preprocessing of data manipulation, each signal
is consecutively segmented to 1000 observation frames, where
each frame has 4096 amplitude samples. Regarding 12 UA
signals measured at different SNRs, totally 192 000 signal
frames are accumulated. Then, we randomly divide the data
set into 70% for training and 30% for testing.
IV. E XPERIMENTAL R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION
This section reports the experimental results, evaluated
on the 12-class UA data set, to demonstrate the efficiency
of UATC-DenseNet bearing low-SNR conditions and verify
the robustness of the model in the association with various
parameter configurations, including the kernel size and the
number of conv-blocks. Furthermore, a comparison between
the proposed CNN and other existing DL models for the task
of UA target classification is given accordingly. With regard to
the learning classification model, UATC-DenseNet is trained
in 40 epochs using the stochastic gradient descent optimizer
with the minibatch size of 64 and the initial learning rate
(5) of 0.001. To prevent the network from overfitting, the dropout
technique with the probability of 20% and the L2 regulariza-
tion (weight decay) with the factor of 0.0001 are adopted in
the training process.
In the first experiment, the effect of the kernel size para-
meter on the overall accuracy is comprehensively analyzed,
in which the size of 1-D kernels configured in the convolu-
tional layers varies in the set of {3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15}. Based
on the numerical result plotted in Fig. 3(a), the larger the
kernel size is, the more accurately the model classifies. It
is obvious that, with a larger kernel size corresponding to a
bigger receptive field of neuron observation, more meaningful
representative features extracted in local enable the network
to recognize UA target more explicitly. For example, with the
kernel 1 × 15, the model achieves the greatest classification
rate of 99.25% at 0-dB SNR, which improves the model
specifying the kernel 1 × 3 by 2.48%. Compared with the
kernel 1 × 7 configured in Table I, the higher gap yielded by
the kernel 1 × 15 kernel is insignificant.
In the second experiment, the performance of the model is
evaluated with various numbers of conv-block to study the
(6) impact of network depth on the performance of the sonar
system. Regarding the evaluation result shown in Fig. 3(b),
it is realized that UATC-DenseNet properly enhances the clas-
sification performance with more conv-blocks configured in
a deeper network. By adopting more conv-blocks throughout
(7) the backbone of CNN, the UA signals can be analyzed more
distinctively, wherein many temporal correlations are captured
at multiple feature representations and further combined via
the skip-connection mechanism cleverly deployed in UATC-
DenseNet. If the network is expanded from two to three
conv-blocks, the accuracy is remarkably improved by approx-
imately 1.90% of average. With more than three conv-blocks,
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
4 IEEE GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING LETTERS
Fig. 3. Classification accuracy comparison with different hyperparameter configurations: (a) different kernel sizes, (b) different number of conv-blocks,
(c) different layer configurations, and (d) different types of input features.
TABLE I
D ETAILED D ESCRIPTION OF UATC-D ENSE N ET A RCHITECTURE
the model gains an accuracy improvement trivially by 0.24%–
0.59% on average, but the network complexity, including the
number of trainable parameters and the number of convolution
operations, grows rapidly to cause the system working more
slowly. Reasonably, UATC-DenseNet is organized by three
conv-blocks, wherein the convolutional layer in each block
is configured by 1 × 7 kernels to achieve the good tradeoff
between accuracy and computational cost for real-time system
implementation.
We further analyze the network architecture, in which
the concatenation and pooling layers are substituted by the
addition and 1 × 1 convolution layers, respectively. The con-
volution layers are configured with stride (1, 2). In Fig. 3(c),
we show the classification accuracy of two network variants,
denoted Concat + Pool and Add + Conv, where the network
model of Concat + Pool classifies more precisely than that
of Add + Conv with the average higher accuracy of 0.7%.
Compared with Add + Conv, Catcat + Pool is more favor-
able to accumulate more informative features at multiscale
resolutions, but it has a higher computational complexity
because more feature maps are stacked throughout the network
for processing. Statistically, Concat + Pool is heavier than
Fig. 4. Accuracy of 12-target classification in detail.
Add + Conv by around 79k learnable parameters (including
weights and biases) and 0.003 giga-multiplier–accumulators
(GMACs). In Fig. 3(d), we investigate the performance of
UATC-DenseNet with different input formats, including raw
waveform and short-time Fourier transform (STFT) feature
(using the window size of 128 without overlapping). The
numerical results indicate that UATC-DenseNet classifies raw
waveforms more accurately than STFT features by the average
accuracy of around 2.1%. It is worth noting that the STFT-
based approach is computationally expensive in terms of
feature extraction compared with the raw waveform-based one.
Intensively, the detailed classification results of 11 UA
targets and one noisy blank signal are reported in Fig. 4,
wherein the nondetected target impaired by additive Gaussian
noise is easily recognized by UATC-DenseNet. With other
remainders, depending on the UA emission characteristic of
observed targets, their accuracy rates are different. Further-
more, it is realized that the accuracy generally rises along
with the increment of SNR, where the improvement is con-
siderable for low SNR (from −20 to +0 dB) and insignificant
for ≥+2 dB SNR.
In the last experiment, the proposed network notably out-
performs some popular ML methods, including KNN with
five neighbors, DT with ten compact classification trees, SVM
with Gaussian kernel function and an average margin of 0.02,
and random forest (RF), where the comparison results are
plotted in Fig. 5(a). We perform tenfold cross validation with
14 features extracted by the MFCC technique. Furthermore,
UATC-DenseNet is also compared with three other well-
known networks, including CNN-extreme learning machine
(ELM) [15], ResNet18 [14], and SqueezeNet [16], in terms of
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
DOAN et al.: UA TARGET CLASSIFICATION BASED ON DENSE CNN
Fig. 5. Accuracy comparison between UATC-DenseNet with (a) other ML
and (b) existing DL methods.
TABLE II
M ETHOD C OMPARISON OF C OMPUTATIONAL C OMPLEXITY
classification accuracy, where the numerical results are plotted
in Fig. 5(b). These networks are modified to accept the input of
acoustic signals and trained from scratch with randomly initial-
ized parameters as UATC-DenseNet. Regarding the accuracy,
in the impaired condition of low SNR (≤0 dB), CNN-ELM
that is plainly configured with two convolutional layers and
three fully connected layers reports the worst classification
rate. Despite being facilitated for 1-D signal processing,
SqueezeNet can show a pleasurable accuracy with fire modules
cascaded in the architecture. With multiple residual blocks,
wherein the information identity is maintained throughout
the network architecture, ResNet performs target classification
more accurately than SqueezeNet. By competently studying
dense skip-connections, UATC-DenseNet optimizes the uti-
lization of representational features accumulated in multiple
layers to achieve a superior accuracy, which is greater than the
others by approximately 0.9%–4.6% at 0-dB SNR. Regarding
the computational complexity as one of the most important
factors in real system implementation, we report the average
prediction time (measured by the stopwatch timer in MAT-
LAB) with the standard deviation, the number of learnable
parameters, and the number of GMACs of UATC-DenseNet
and other networks in Table II. This experiment is done on
a hardware platform using Core i5-9400 CPU, 16-GB RAM,
and a single GeForce RTX 2070 GPU. With 124k parameters
and 0.03 GMACs, UATC-DenseNet predicts acoustic targets
more slowly than SqueezeNet by 0.2 ms due to the multi-input
concatenation-based structure, but the speed is more stable
with a smaller standard deviation. ResNet and CNN-ELM,
which contain very large numbers of parameters in the model,
report the worst processing speed with the prediction time of
3.9 and 4.7 ms, respectively, due to the addition operation
performed in the residual block and the extremely expensive
computation of three fully connected layers.
5
V. C ONCLUSION
Our study has demonstrated the evaluation of UATC-
DenseNet with different hyperparameter configurations for the
UA target classification under various SNRs and compared
with other existing models. Based on an intensive perfor-
mance evaluation, UATC-DenseNet classifies the acoustic tar-
get more accurately with a deeper network architecture and
a larger kernel size configured. In performance comparison,
UATC-DenseNet remarkably outperforms four ML techniques
and other existing CNNs for the task of 12-target classification.
With such performance in terms of classification accuracy and
prediction time, UATC-DenseNet has a promising potential
for applying in underwater surveillance systems in practice
to accurately classify acoustic targets. In the future, we will
exploit several advanced time–frequency analysis techniques
to improve the accuracy of the DL-based classifier.
R EFERENCES
[1] K. Nikolai, Sonar Systems. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech, 2011.
[2] Y. Feng, R. Tao, and Y. Wang, “Modeling and characteristic analysis of
underwater acoustic signal of the accelerating propeller,” Sci. China-Inf.
Sci., vol. 55, no. 2, p. 270–280, Jun. 2011.
[3] B. C. Pinheiro, U. F. Moreno, J. T. B. de Sousa, and O. C. Rodríguez,
“Kernel-function-based models for acoustic localization of underwater
vehicles,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng., vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 603–618, Jul. 2017.
[4] M. Rahmati and D. Pompili, “UNISeC: Inspection, separation, and clas-
sification of underwater acoustic noise point sources,” IEEE J. Ocean.
Eng., vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 777–791, Jul. 2018.
[5] G. Sharma, K. Umapathy, and S. Krishnan, “Trends in audio sig-
nal feature extraction methods,” Appl. Acoust., vol. 158, Jan. 2020,
Art. no. 107020.
[6] X.-Y. Zeng and S.-G. Wang, “Bark-wavelet analysis and Hilbert–Huang
transform for underwater target recognition,” Def. Technol., vol. 9, no. 2,
pp. 115–120, Jun. 2013.
[7] W. Zhang, Y. Wu, D. Wang, Y. Wang, Y. Wang, and L. Zhang, “Under-
water target feature extraction and classification based on gammatone
filter and machine learning,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Wavelet Anal. Pattern
Recognit. (ICWAPR), Chengdu, China, Jul. 2018, pp. 42–47.
[8] X. Ke, F. Yuan, and E. Cheng, “Underwater acoustic target recognition
based on supervised feature-separation algorithm,” Sensors, vol. 18,
no. 12, p. 4318, Dec. 2018.
[9] M. E. Paoletti, J. M. Haut, J. Plaza, and A. Plaza, “Deep learning
classifiers for hyperspectral imaging: A review,” ISPRS J. Photogramm.
Remote Sens., vol. 158, pp. 279–317, Dec. 2019.
[10] X. Wang, A. Liu, Y. Zhang, and F. Xue, “Underwater acoustic target
recognition: A combination of multi-dimensional fusion features and
modified deep neural network,” Remote Sens., vol. 11, no. 16, p. 1888,
Aug. 2019.
[11] F. Yuan, X. Ke, and E. Cheng, “Joint representation and recognition
for ship-radiated noise based on multimodal deep learning,” J. Mar. Sci.
Eng., vol. 7, no. 11, p. 380, Oct. 2019.
[12] X. Cao, X. Zhang, R. Togneri, and Y. Yu, “Underwater target classifi-
cation at greater depths using deep neural network with joint multiple-
domain feature,” IET Radar, Sonar Navigat., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 484–491,
Mar. 2019.
[13] G. Huang, Z. Liu, L. Van Der Maaten, and K. Q. Weinberger,
“Densely connected convolutional networks,” in Proc. IEEE Conf.
Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. (CVPR), Honolulu, HI, USA, Jul. 2017,
pp. 2261–2269.
[14] K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for
image recognition,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit.
(CVPR), Las Vegas, NV, USA, Jun. 2016, pp. 770–778.
[15] G. Hu, K. Wang, Y. Peng, M. Qiu, J. Shi, and L. Liu, “Deep learn-
ing methods for underwater target feature extraction and recognition,”
Comput. Intell. Neurosci., vol. 2018, pp. 1–10, Mar. 2018.
[16] F. N. Iandola, S. Han, M. W. Moskewicz, K. Ashraf, W. J. Dally, and
K. Keutzer, “SqueezeNet: AlexNet-level accuracy with 50x fewer para-
meters and < 0.5MB model size,” 2016, arXiv:1602.07360. [Online].
Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.07360