This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JSEN.2020.3007883, IEEE Sensors
Journal
Sensors-30790-2020
Invariant Feature based Darknet Architecture for
Moving Object classification
1
S.Vasavi Sr Member IEEE, 2N.Kanthi Priyadarshini ,3K.Harsha Vardhan
1,2,3
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, VR Siddhartha Engineering College, India
vasavi.movva@gmail.com, kanthi17.neerukonda@gmail.com ,koneru.harshavardhan499@gmail.com
Abstract— Object detection and classification is important for
video surveillance applications. Counting vehicles like cars, truck
and vans is useful for intelligent transportation systems to
identify dense and sparse roads, track loaded vehicles at the
country borders. Even though many solutions such as
appearance-based (Multi-block Local Binary Pattern) and
model-based((DATMO) algorithm) are proposed to classify the
moving objects within the satellite images using machine learning
and deep learning techniques, they either have over fitting
problems or low performance. Hence these challenges have to be
addressed during detecting and classifying the objects. Instead of
training the classifiers with hand-crafted features, this paper uses
neural network based object detection and classification to
achieve promising accuracy better than the humans. Invariant
feature concept is added to the existing Darknet Architecture of
You Only Look Once (YOLO) and is combined with Faster
Region-Based Convolutional Neural Networks (Faster R-CNN) to
count the number of vehicles with different spatial locations. This
combined model improves feature extraction step and vehicle
classification process. The proposed system is tested on two
benchmark datasets Cars Overhead with Context (COWC) and
Vehicle Detection in Aerial Imagery (VEDAI) for counting the
cars and trucks. Experimental results prove that the proposed
system is better by 9% in detecting smaller objects than existing
works.
Index Terms— Deep learning, Faster R-CNN, Neural
networks, Object Classification, Satellite images, Vehicle
detection, YOLO, Darknet
I. INTRODUCTION
In the era of surveillance with drones and remote sensing,
solving research significant application such as vehicle
detection and classification problem with deep learning
techniques in reduced cost has become important. Scale
invariant, rotation invariant and dense object detection with
good accuracy is even more challenging task and requires
robust classifier. Machine vision software based on deep
learning algorithms became essential in many of the
automated systems of Industry 4.0 that require object detection
and classification tasks. Sensor based vehicle detection
systems are used to solve parking slot problem [Z. Zhang, M.
Tao and H. Yuan (2015)]. Non intrusive methods are proposed
as an alternate solution for vehicle detection in order to reduce
the establishment and maintenance costs [M. Rivas-López et
al (2015]. Wireless networks and wireless technologies such
Submitted on 9th January 2020, Revised on 15th June 2020
1558-1748 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Carleton University. Downloaded on July 16,2020 at 14:15:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1
as Radio frequency identification (RFID) based systems are
used to detect stolen vehicles, ambulances that require road
clearance. Magnetic sensor network based vehicle detection
can improve accuracy and reduces signal-noise-ratio [L.
Zhang, R. Wang and L. Cui (2011)]. Such networks depend on
similarity based algorithms to compare waveforms. Ultrasonic
sensors are used to detect vehicles and save them from
potholes accidents [R. Madli, S. Hebbar, P. Pattar and V.
Golla(2015)]. Sensors based systems are developed to classify
the vehicle movement in industrial monitoring target detection
systems [X. Jin, S. Sarkar, A. Ray, S. Gupta and T. Damarla
(2012)]. Radar based deep learning systems are developed to
distinguish different types of moving objects such as person,
vehicle, animal [X. Jin, S. Sarkar, A. Ray, S. Gupta and T.
Damarla (2020)]. Vehicle detection in dense traffic roads is
important to dynamically plan the signal lights at the road
junctions [S. Tuermer, F. Kurz, P. Reinartz and U. Stilla
(2013)]. This requires, detecting vehicles and estimating
vehicle density periodically. Aerial imagery based vehicle
detection requires robust system to detect both small and large
sized vehicles [Azam, S.; Rafique, A.; Jeon, M (2016)].
Vehicle detection accuracy in aerial images is not encouraging
even with the usage of deep neural networks [Jiandan Zhong,
Tao Lei and Guangle Yao (2017)]. Anchor generation
methods have improved the accuracy of on-board vehicle
detection [Wang, Y.; Liu, Z.; Deng, W (2019)]. Vehicle
detection from satellite images faces the problem of
appearance and size information [Yang, T.; Wang, X.; Yao,
B.; Li, J.; Zhang, Y.; He, Z.; Duan, W (2016)]. Aerial imagery
presents detailed pixel information of vehicles than in satellite
images and hence can be used in applications that require real
time detection. Moving object detection from the images with
one meter resolution generated by earth observation systems
can be used in surveillance applications such as security at
country boarders. Video satellites such as Skysat-1, Jillin-1
can generate images with 0.92 meter resolution. Object
detection in such videos is a challenging task because of
occluded objects and shadow areas [Z. Hu, D. Yang, K. Zhang
and Z. Chen (2020)]. Object detection accuracy with deep
neural networks can be improved by extracting varied features
[X. Chen, S. Xiang, C. Liu and C. Pan (2014)]. Rotation
invariant feature extraction methods helps to detect vehicles
with different pose and size [Y. Yu, H. Guan and Z. Ji (2015)].
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) that uses DC motors for
object detection can help in transport surveillance systems [L.
Lindner et al (2016)]. Region based networks are proposed for
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JSEN.2020.3007883, IEEE Sensors
Journal
Sensors-30790-2020
small object detection with respect to ground sampling
distance in aerial images [L. Sommer, T. Schuchert and J.
Beyerer (2019)]. Light weight neural networks can reduce
computational cost at training, validation and testing for
vehicle detection in aerial images [J. Shen, N. Liu, H. Sun and
H. Zhou (2019)]. Context and scene specific feature detectors
can reduce false alarm rates during vehicle detection [C. Tao,
L. Mi, Y. Li, J. Qi, Y. Xiao and J. Zhang (2019)]. Region-of-
interest based deep neural networks can predict the location of
vehicle that correlates to bounding box of the object in ground
truth [W. Chu, Y. Liu, C. Shen, D. Cai and X. Hua (2018)].
Convolutional neural networks has enhanced machine vision
with diverse technologies such as Artificial neural networks
(ANN), Recurrent Networks, deep neural networks that
enabled increased object detection accuracy [J. M. Gandarias,
A. J. García-Cerezo and J. M. Gómez-de-Gabriel(2019)]. A
number of self learning based object detection architectures
are developed to automate the detection-classification
workflow. Different stereoscopic vision systems, methods and
implementation is explained in [Ramírez-Hernández L.R. et
al. (2020)]
A. Motivation
Satellite image analysis helps in a wide variety of applications
both in commercial and government sectors. Vehicle
detection, as an active research area, has been widely used in
military surveillance, intelligent traffic systems [Huang,
Xiaohui, Pan He, Anand Rangarajan, and Sanjay
Ranka(2019)], maritime search and rescue. Human operators
cannot monitor for long time periods. Also detecting objects
such as cars, trucks, aircrafts and ships from high-resolution
satellite images is a difficult task. Although various
approaches attempt to solve this problem, there is no widely
recognized solution to the problem. The difficulties mainly lie
in three aspects: the diversity of colors and shapes for different
vehicles, complex background and occlusions. Various object
location methods have been applied to vehicle detection.
Traditional approaches that use hand-craft features such as
Haar features, Scale Invariant Feature Transform (SIFT),
Local Binary Patterns (LBP) and Histogram of Oriented
Gradients (HOG) for detecting moving object have high false
alarm rate [Shugang Zhang, Zhiqiang Wei, Jie Nie, Lei
Huang, Shuang Wang, Zhen Li(2017)]. Deep learning
approaches for feature extraction are based on varied
Convolutional neural networks such as Region-based
Convolutional neural networks (R-CNN), Faster R-CNN,
Region-based Fully Convolutional Network (R-FCN), VGG-
16 [K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman(2014)], Residual Neural
Network (ResNet). These approaches face accuracy and speed
problems and are not suitable to the real-time environment. As
such we require an automated approach that can improve
vehicle detection accuracy.
B. Contribution
This paper proposes a combined system of both YOLO and
Faster R-CNN for detection, classification and counting cars
and trucks in satellite images. Rotation Invariant-features
1558-1748 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Carleton University. Downloaded on July 16,2020 at 14:15:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2
helps in improving the detection accuracy of an object with
different appearances. This combined system overcomes the
problem of detecting small objects and gives the count of
different vehicles that can be used for further processing in
applications such as intelligent transportation systems.
C. Organization
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 describes a
literature survey on object detection and classification
methods. Section 3 describes the proposed framework. Results
and discussion are given in section 4.
II. LITERATURE SURVEY
Work reported in [Shenquan Qu, Ying Wang, Gaofeng
Meng, and Chunhong Pan (2016)] explores vehicle detection
from satellite images with two stages. Binary normed
gradients (BING) are used to extract regions and to speed up
the localization process. CNN is used for feature extraction
and classification. The first stage generates category-
independent region proposals. These proposals are the input
data for the next stage. Then the second stage uses CNN to
decide which proposals are vehicles. As vehicle detection
requires localizing objects within an image, a commonly used
approach that has been used for several decades is the sliding
window based detector. This method is not practical since it is
time consuming. Authors used satellite images from Google
earth of San Francisco city for implementation. Work
described in [Qiling Jiang, Liujuan Cao, Ming Cheng, Cheng
Wang, Jonathan Li (2015)] presents vehicle detection from
satellite images using Deep Neural Networks (DNN). First,
road segments are extracted. Graph based segmentation is
used to extract image patches. DNN is trained with these
patches and finally classified into vehicle and no-vehicle class.
ImageNet dataset is used by the authors. The images are of
various sizes and are divided into 1000 classes. The training
set contains about 1000 images of each class, which results in
about 1.28 million images. Testing is done with 50000 and
150000 images with the same 1000 categories. They did not
use the validation or test set in their work. The advantage is
that, their system achieved excellent performance in object
recognition and could detect both bright and dark vehicles.
But the drawback is that, it could detect vehicles on-road only.
Authors of [Yohei Koga, Hiroyuki Miyazaki and Ryosuke
Shibasaki(2018)] described hard example mining for detection
using R-CNN algorithm. USGS Aerial ortho images are used
by the authors to test their system. This method is time
consuming and did not consider balanced training data.
[Mundhenk, T.N, Konjevod, G, Sakla, W.A, Boakye, K
(2016)] used parallel DNN for detection, that detects and
counts cars independently of its scene and location. It
considers only cars and not other objects such as trucks, vans.
Oriented_SSD (Single Shot MultiBox Detector SSD) is
described in [Tianyu Tang, Shilin Zhou, Zhipeng Deng, Lin
Lei and Huanxin Zou (2017)]. This method produces error in
orientation estimation because of false and missing detections.
Authors of [Konoplich, G.V.; Putin, E.O.; Filchenkov,
A.A(2015)] proposed an adapted hybrid neural network
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JSEN.2020.3007883, IEEE Sensors
Journal
Sensors-30790-2020
(HDNN) to detect vehicles in real-time. This method is not
practical since it is time consuming. Multi-scale deep CNN
(MS-CNN) for object detection is described in [Cai, Z.; Fan,
Q.; Feris, R.S.; Vasconcelos, N. (2016)]. This method requires
large memory for input up-sampling. [Azam, S.; Rafique, A.;
Jeon, M (2016)] described a method called FASTER R-CNN
for estimating the pose of the vehicle. Their method could not
detect small objects and considers only cars. [Zhang, Huan,
Cai Meng, Xiangzhi Bai, and Zhaoxi Li (2018)] also described
estimating pose of vehicle using an arc based ellipse fitting
method. It concentrates on how to improve detection accuracy
from low resolution images using ellipse parameters. Region
based networks could not detect small objects. Hyper region
proposal network (HRPN) is described in [Tang T, Zhou S,
Deng Z, Zou H, Lei L(2017)]. Performance is reduced
sometimes because of background objects. Works reported in
[Sang J, Guo P, Xiang Z, Luo H, Chen X(2017)] used three
different convolutional neural networks such as R-CNN,
VGG16, and ResNet-152 to achieve good recognition
accuracy. This method may not be suitable for implementation
in real time because of speed. For detecting small objects from
satellite images, [Adam Van Etten (2018)] described a
pipeline called You Only Look Twice (YOLT), that outputs
bounding boxes around the objects. YOLO 1 [J. Redmon, S.
Divvala, R. Girshick and A. Farhadi(2016)] and YOLO 2 [J.
Redmon and A. Farhad(2017)] are developed as an alternate to
Faster R-CNN for vehicle detection. Satellite Imagery
Multiscale Rapid Detection with Windowed Networks
(SIMRDWN) framework is proposed in [Adam Van Etten
(2018)], that combines YOLT with the TensorFlow Object
Detection Application Program Interface (API) for better
object detection. Both methods could not differentiate features
for highways and runways. Faster R-CNN [Qu T., Zhang Q.,
Sun S (2017)][ Tang T., Zhou S., Deng Z., Zou H., Lei L
(2017)] generates region proposals having foreground objects
in the first step and then classifies these objects in the second
step. Computational cost of this method is higher. Authors of
[Dmitry Sincha, Mikhail Chervonenkis and Pavel Skribtsov
(2016)] described a method to detect objects in multiple
scales. Munich Dataset is used for experimentation. Vehicles
are classified into three classes such as heavy, light and
middle. Performance can be increased by reducing detection
quality. Work presented in [Jiandan Zhong, Tao Lei and
Guangle Yao (2017)] described CNN-based detection model
using convolutional neural networks. Partially occluded
objects are not detected. Also this method cannot distinguish
between intra class objects. [Hadj-Sahraoui, Omar, Hadria
Fizazi, Faouzi Berrichi, Djemoui Chamakhi, and Lahcen
Wahib Kebir (2019), Atta, Randa, and Mohammad
Ghanbari[2013)] discussed on methods for improving the
resolution of images. Various functions for performance
evaluation are discussed in [Loss functions (2019)] such as
cross entropy, hinge, Huber, Kullback-Leibler, Mean absolute
error (MAE), Mean Squared Error (MSE). Cross-entropy loss
function is used in the proposed system to deal with
overlapping multi-class labels. This function outputs the
classifier performance as a probability value between 0 and 1.
1558-1748 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Carleton University. Downloaded on July 16,2020 at 14:15:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
3
If the output value is less than the predicted value, means it is
nearing to actual label. Our proposed system uses Darknet
based YOLO for detection, because existing object detection
systems could not accurately locate small objects [Guo X. Hu,
Zhong Yang, Lei Hu, Li Huang, and Jia M. Han (2018)] and
Faster R-CNN is used for classification.
III. PROPOSED SYSTEM
Even though mean average precision (mAP) of Faster R-
CNN is good, but it takes more processing time with 5 to 18
frames per second (fps)[ J. Shen, N. Liu, H. Sun and H.
Zhou(2019)]. Also R-CNN requires fixed input size [H. Chen,
Z. He, B. Shi and T. Zhong(2019)]. Yolo v3 is with 155 fps
and is fast in object detection without compromising on
accuracy. As such object detection is done using YOLO and
classification using Faster R-CNN. The following Figure 1
presents the workflow of the proposed system.
In the first step, YOLO predicts all the bounding boxes
containing objects from the given input satellite image. In the
second stage, Convolutional network of Faster R-CNN
verifies the detected regions and classifies objects in the
detected regions. YOLO determines the locations within the
image where there is the possibility of object’s presence. The
advantage of using YOLO is that, instead of using a pipeline
of steps for detection, which is a slow process, it detects using
a single neural network. Faster R-CNN produces more false
positives than YOLO. Hence YOLO is used at detection and
Faster R-CNN at classification. The advantage of combining
YOLO with Faster R-CNN is to detect smaller objects and to
predict more than one class.
Image size of 416X416 is taken as input. Initially YOLO is
used for detecting the probability of bounding box. A
bounding box with high probability (more than 0.5) is passed
to Faster R-CNN for final classification. Faster R-CNN is
slow and this can be solved by combining YOLO v3 [Joseph
Redmon, Ali Farhadi (2019), Kim, Daeho, Meiyin Liu,
SangHyun Lee, and Vineet R. Kamat (2019)] (that uses one
stage detector strategy) with Faster R-CNN without having to
use much expensive hardware. One extra step is added to this
hybrid architecture of Faster R-CNN and YOLO, which is to
augment rotations, so as to handle the unusual orientation of
the object. Rotation invariant features are used by [Y. Yu, H.
Guan and Z. Ji(2015)] to estimate object centroid. Whereas the
present system used augment rotations to increase the training
set. The output from YOLO is generated after applying 1X1
kernel on the feature map. Kernel size is taken as 1X1X (3X
(5+3)) = 1X1X24, for 3 bounding boxes and 3 classes. 1X1
kernel size results in non-spatially correlated information loss,
but can benefit in reduced over fitting problem.
Different detection size is taken for car and truck. The
feature map has an identical height and width of 416. Multi-
label prediction (with logistic regression) is done at down-
sample dimensions for input image of stride 32,16,8 and 52 x
52, 26 x 26, 13 x 13 scales. Softmax activation is not used in
the proposed system, because it uses mutual exclusive
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JSEN.2020.3007883, IEEE Sensors
Journal
Sensors-30790-2020 4

3X3 Grid

Augment Rotation

Bounding box ,
Input Satellite Image confidence score using
sigmoid function
Feature map generation
Rotation

Final detections

Figure. 1 Workflow of the proposed system

function and hence Sigmoid function is used for Type Filters Size Output
determining the class confidence. Darknet-53 [Chuan-Pin Lu,
Convolutional 32 3X3 256 X 256
Jiun-Jian Liaw ,Tzu-Ching Wu and Tsung-Fu Hung (2019)]
Convolutional 64 3 X 3 /2 128 X 128
with Sigmoid function is shown in Figure 2. Yolo v3 has 106
Convolutional 32 1X1
Convolutional layers (53 from Darknet trained on Imagenet
1X Convolutional 64 3X3
and additional 53 for detection task) is used for feature
Residual 128 X 128
extraction. The sigmoid function is added to the architecture.
Convolutional 128 3 X 3 /2 64 X 64
The bottom three layers are used to detect different scaled Convolutional 64 1X1
objects. 2X Convolutional 128 3X3
The network downsamples the input image as explained in Residual 64 X 64
[Chuan-Pin Lu, Jiun-Jian Liaw ,Tzu-Ching Wu andTsung-Fu Convolutional 256 3 X 3 /2 32 X 32
Hung (2019)] and at the layer 81 with stride 32. 1 x 1 Convolutional 128 1X1
detection kernel gives feature map of 13 x 13 x 8 for image 8X Convolutional 256 3X3
size 416X416. Uupsampling is done by a factor of 2. Residual 32 X 32
Detections are done at 94 layer and 106 layer with stride 16 Convolutional 512 3 X 3 /2 16 X 16
and 8 respectively. Upsampling helps in detecting small Convolutional 256 1X1
objects, where the network learns fine-grained features. 8X Convolutional 512 3X3
Selective search that uses color, texture properties are used to Residual 16 X 16
classify the regions given by YOLO. It can reduce the analysis Different
Convolutional 1024 3 X 3 /2 8X8
Scaled
of a number of bounding boxes. Intersection over Union (IoU) Convolutional 512 1X1
objects
overlap of 0.3 is taken for positive prediction of small objects 4X Convolutional 1024 3X3
too, as given in Eq(1). Residual 8X8
IoU = Areaofoverlap / AreaofUnion (1)
Sigmoid Function

Figure 2: Architecture of Darknet-53

1558-1748 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Carleton University. Downloaded on July 16,2020 at 14:15:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JSEN.2020.3007883, IEEE Sensors
Journal
Sensors-30790-2020 5

A. Methodology (COWC) (2018)].

1. Load the input image of size 416X416 and extract its It was observed that Vaihingen and Columbus city images
dimensions. The images from the dataset are with spatial are grayscale and the remaining four cities images are in RGB.
resolution of 15cm Ground Sampling Distance (GSD) 2. The VEDAI dataset [Razakarivony, S. and Jurie, F.
2. For each image, create additional training images using (2015)] consists of nine classes with 1250 images. For our
Rotation set = [0,15,30,45,60,75,90,105,120,135,150, experimentation we took the car and truck classes only.
165,180]
3. Divide the input image into grids IV. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
4. Assign detection kernel size. A. Experimental Setup
5. Train the model with labeled data. Each of the raw image The OpenCV Python 3.2 is used for implementing the
file into matrix notation. Divide the matrix into steps. algorithms of the proposed system. Our experimentation is
Now form grids of size 13x 13, to extract the training set done on CPU and as such, for each image it took nearly 12
(total of 308988 for COWC dataset) and testing set (total seconds. It initially creates patches and then proceeds for
of 79447 for COWC dataset) grids from large overhead scenes detection. Minimum probability of 0.5 is considered to
images without any overlap in the two sets. Here we have filter the weak detections. Non-maxima suppression threshold
3 classes for prediction “car”, “truck” and “others”. Eight for suppressing multiple detections of the same object is set
dimension vector of Grid cell , y is given as follows: with a default value of 0.5. YOLO is trained for about 160
y= epochs and in the COWC dataset there are 33553 images. So
the total number of epochs required is 160* 509. The
pbo dx dy dh Dw o1 o2 o3
learning rate is taken as 0.9. Predefined YOLO weights
available at [Pretrained Weight file (2019)] are used in the
Here, implementation. Open source code for Darknet-53 available at
• pbo specifies object presence probability [Darknet(2018)] is customized for our experimentation to add
• dx, dy, dh, dw specifies the dimensions of the object invariant feature extraction and all default values are used
• o1, o2, o3 represents various classes such as car, truck such as weight decay of 0.005, height and width as 608, batch
and others size as 64. Patch labels are created for each of the dataset.
• If no object is found then o1,o2,o3 will be zero The following table 1 to table 3 presents results of the
6. Pass the objectness score, pc to Sigmoid function (output proposed system on various datasets for detecting cars and
is squashed to a range of 0 to 1) trucks from COWC and Vedai datasets. It can be observed that
7. Repeat for all the boxes: Any box with a probability less false positives are less, because, YOLO predicts object
than or equal to 0.5 (threshold) is discarded. Output the box boundaries after a thorough scan on the entire image. Few
with the highest probability. objects are not detected because of cluttered background area.
8. Image Location Detection: Data labels consist of an IoU of 0.3 also helped in reducing the number of false
image mask where non-zero pixels denote the object centroid. positives. It was observed that, few objects were not detected
Bounding box labels are created by assuming 3.0 meters a as shown in these tables, because of the following reasons:
mean car size and 4.0 for the truck, and transforming the (i) Occlusions
image mask into bounding boxes of 20 pixels on a side (ii) The basic nature of YOLO looking only once over the
centered on the label point. overlapping objects and merged them as a single object.
9. Logistic regression for Vehicle Classification: (iii) Setting threshold of 0.5 to discard the weak detections
(a) Extract the object locations (width and height of the (partial objects are not detected).
object) and save in to a matrix
(b) Draw patch (bounding box) for each object Table 1: Results of the proposed system for detecting cars in
(c) Remove patches whose shape exceeds the shape of a COWC dataset
matrix. S.No Dataset Images No. of No. of Cars
(d) Read the image patch and write the locations and cars detected
dimensions of an object into a text file. 1 Columbus 1301 1281 1273
(e) Determine the step location of each object. 2 Potsdam 7046 6770 5770
3 Selwyn 4828 4779 4709
B. Dataset Description 4 Toronto 7485 7287 7198
1. COWC dataset is used for experimentation in this work. 5 Utah 8145 8006 7939
This dataset consists of large set of annotated cars and trucks 6 Vaihingen 3748 3680 3568
from six locations Toronto Canada, Selwyn New Zealand,
Total 32553 31803 30457
Potsdam and Vaihingn Germany, Columbus and Utah United
States. This dataset has negative examples and helps for better
Table 2: Results of the proposed system for detecting trucks in
classification.
COWC dataset
It also provides extra testing scenes for use after validation.
S.No Dataset Images N.o of No. of
It can be downloaded from [Cars Overhead With Context

1558-1748 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Carleton University. Downloaded on July 16,2020 at 14:15:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JSEN.2020.3007883, IEEE Sensors
Journal
Sensors-30790-2020 6

trucks trucks model. Other methods such as Precision and Recall are used to
detected evaluate performance of the proposed system. Also F1 score is
1 Columbus 1301 11 8 calculated to find balance of precision and recall.
2 Potsdam 7046 43 21 Table 5 and table 6 presents accuracy of the proposed
3 Selwyn 4828 24 13 system for detecting cars and trucks in the COWC dataset.
Table 7 presents the accuracy of the proposed system for
4 Toronto 7485 29 14
detecting cars and trucks in the Vedai dataset.
5 Utah 8145 13 6
6 Vaihingen 3748 58 28 Table 5 Accuracy of the proposed system for cars on COWC
S.No Dataset Precision Recall Accuracy
Table 3: Results of the proposed system for detecting cars and
1 Columbus 99.77 99.61 99.38
trucks in Vedai dataset
S.No Object Images No. of objects No..of 2 Potsdam 99.89 85.22 85.17
detections 3 Selwyn 99.62 98.54 98.17
1 Car 1250 5875 4678
4 Toronto 99.97 98.78 98.75
2 Truck 1250 343 301
5 Utah 99.96 99.16 99.13
B. Performance Evaluation Measures 6 Vaihingen 100 96.96 96.96
Performance of the proposed system is calculated using
several measures as described in the following: Average 99.87 96.38 96.26
(i) Confusion matrix: It is a table with True Positives (TP),
False Positives (FP), False Negatives (FN) and True Negatives Table 6 Accuracy of proposed system for trucks on COWC
(TN), to visualize classification algorithm performance as S.No Dataset Precision Recall Accuracy
shown in the table 4 1 Columbus 80 72.73 73.68
2 Potsdam 87.5 48.84 52.8
Table 4 Confusion Matrix [S. Vasavi, Reshma Shaik, 3 Selwyn 92.86 54.17 63.64
Sahithi Yarlagadda(2018)] 4 Toronto 77.78 56 60.53
Predicted a=0 Predicted b=1 5 Utah 75 46.15 52.63
actual a=0 TP FP 6 Vaihingen 96.55 48.28 51.56
Average 84.95 54.36 59.14
actual b=1 FN TN
(ii) Classification Accuracy Rate (CAR): This is used to Table 7 Accuracy of the proposed system on Vedai dataset
measure based on the confusion matrix as given in Eq(2) S.No Dataset Precision Recall Accuracy
[S.Vasavi, Reshma Shaik, Sahithi Yarlagadda(2018)]. 1 Cars 99.13 82.41 82.45
accuracy = (tp + tn) / (tp + tn + fp + fn) (2) 2 Trucks 94.06 89.05 86.51
(iii) Precision: It is used to measure the relevancy of the
It can be observed that, Precision and Recall for Utah region
result generated as defined in Eq(3) [S. Vasavi, Reshma Shaik,
is less when compared to other regions, because of factors
Sahithi Yarlagadda(2018)].
such as car density, building architecture, and vegetation
Pr ecision = tp / (tp + fp ) (3) pattern. Table 8 presents Accuracy of the proposed system for
(iv) Recall: It is used to measure relevancy of the result detecting cars and trucks in both datasets.
generated as given in Eq(4) [S. Vasavi, Reshma Shaik, Sahithi
Yarlagadda (2018)]. Table 8 Accuracy of the proposed system for both datasets
Re call = tp / (tp + fn) (4) S. Data Cars Trucks Cars Trucks Cars Trucks
No set Precision Recall Accuracy
(v) F-Measure as given in Eq(5)[S. Vasavi, Reshma Shaik, 1 COWC 99.87 84.95 96.38 54.36 96.26 59.14
Sahithi Yarlagadda (2018)]. 2 Vedai 99.13 94.06 82.41 89.05 82.45 86.51
F1=2*(precision*recall)/(precision +recall ) (5)
(vi) Cross entropy loss function H is given in Eq(6)[ Figure 3 and figure 4 presents accuracy of the proposed
Murphy, Kevin (2012)]. This value can be between 0 and 1. system at each epoch.
The low this value, the more robust the developed model.
H ( p, q ) = − p( x) log q( x)
x (6)
Where p(x) is the required probability and q(x) is the
predicted probability.
Initially accuracy is calculated to evaluate the proposed

1558-1748 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Carleton University. Downloaded on July 16,2020 at 14:15:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JSEN.2020.3007883, IEEE Sensors
Journal
Sensors-30790-2020 7

Recall 75.37 96.15 - 92.1

F-Measure 0.83 0.94 - -

Table 10 Proposed system Vs Existing works for VEDAI

Performance Proposed [Dmitry Sincha, [Jiandan
Metric system Mikhail Zhong, Tao
Chervonenkis and Lei and
Pavel Guangle
Skribtsov(2016)] Yao(2017)]
Accuracy 82.45 - -
Precision 96.6 75.8 -

Recall 85.73 85 80.3

Figure 3. Accuracy for COWC
F-Measure 0.90 0.801 0.782

It can be observed in table 10 that, the proposed system

performed well in extracting the small objects when compared
to [Jiandan Zhong, Tao Lei and Guangle Yao(2017)].

Table 11 False positives for the two datasets

S.No. Dataset False Positives
Car Truck
1 COWC 32 13
2 Vedai 41 19

Cross entropy loss function value for COWC dataset is 0.4 and
0.56 for VEDAI dataset. These values for the probabilities tell
how easily the model can detect given objects (e.g. spread
between 0-1 or 0-0.5).
Figure. 4. Accuracy for VEDAI Figure 5 presents the precision recall curve for both datasets
on cars and trucks. For example in COWC dataset, if we
Table 9 and Table 10 compares the accuracy of the proposed choose precision at 92%, then 84% of cars were detected and
system with existing works. Table 11 presents summary of the if precision level is equal to 0.7 then 10% of the cars are
false positives of both datasets and for cars and trucks. . True detected. If recall increases to 93%, then the precision drops to
positives, False positives, True negatives and False negatives 20%. When both the cars and trucks are considered together,
are aggregated into a single value as shown in these tables. It precision resulted to 92.41. True positive rate (TFR) and false
is 0.83 for cars and 0.9 for trucks. positive rate (FPR) are shown in the table 12, to determine
parameters of Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) curve
Table 9 Proposed system Vs Existing works on COWC as shown in the figure 6, to validate the proposed model. If
Performanc Propose [Mundhen [David [Junyan this curve is either closer to left border or top border then the
e Metric d k, T.N.; Yu,(2018) Lu, Chi test is accurate and atleast comes nearer to the 45 0 diagonal
system Konjevod, ] Ma, Li then the model test is less accurate.
G.; Sakla, Li, TruePositiveRate = tp / (tp + fn) (7)
W.A.; Xiaoyan FalsePositiveRate = fp / ( fp + tn) (8)
Boakye, Xing,
Least square method as explained in [Ramírez-Hernández,
K(2016)] Yong
L. R., Rodríguez-Quiñonez, J. C., Castro-Toscano, M. J.,
Zhang,
Zhigang Hernández-Balbuena, D., Flores-Fuentes, W., Rascón-
Carmona, R.,& Sergiyenko, O. (2020). ] is an alternative
Wang,
method to model the camera calibration error.
Jiuwei
Xu(2018)
]
Accuracy 96.26 89.29 85 95.32
Precision 92.41 92.59 - -

1558-1748 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Carleton University. Downloaded on July 16,2020 at 14:15:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JSEN.2020.3007883, IEEE Sensors
Journal
Sensors-30790-2020 8

Figure.7. Intersection of Union (IoU) on Cars for COWC

Figure. 5. Precision Recall Curve

Figure. 6. ROC curve Figure.8. Intersection of Union (IoU) on trucks for COWC
Table 12: True positive rate and False positive rate for the two
datasets
S.No Dataset TPR FPR
1 COWC (cars) 0.96 0.37
2 COWC (trucks) 0.52 0.003
3 Vedai (cars) 0.82 0.17
4 Vedai (trucks) 0.89 0.25

The following figures 7 to figure 9 presents Intersection of

Union (IoU) for both datasets and for car and trucks. IoU
varying from 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 is taken to fix the value of IoU.
As can be seen from these figures that, IoU of 0.3 is better
than the other IoU values, when we compare both ground truth
and detection boxes.
The proposed system achieved mean Average
Precision(mAP) of 92.41 for COWC dataset and 96.43 for
VEDAI dataset. A higher mAP for VEDAI shows better
performance for vehicle detection.
Figure. 9. Intersection of Union (IoU) for Vedai
V. CONCLUSIONS & FUTURE WORK
Detecting small objects with arbitrary orientations in satellite
images are a challenging task. This paper investigated on
integrating YOLO (augmented with rotation) with Faster R-
CNN to detect and classify the vehicles. The first step in this
integrated model is a regression step to find probable anchor
box that may have vehicles and the second step is to classify
the vehicle in the anchor box. The proposed system uses a
convolutional kernel filter to predict bounding boxes

1558-1748 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Carleton University. Downloaded on July 16,2020 at 14:15:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JSEN.2020.3007883, IEEE Sensors
Journal
Sensors-30790-2020
containing objects along with bounding box locations and the
probability of each class to achieve high accuracy. Jaccard
index(IoU) of 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 is taken to consider a match
between the predicted box and ground truth box. Multi-label
classification using logistic regression is done. All Bounding
boxes with high scores are considered for the classification.
Additional training images are added using Rotation step and
this process helped our proposed system to achieve a better
detection rate. The robustness of the proposed system is
evaluated using several performance measures. Objects are
detected with different scales. Evaluation results on two
benchmark datasets COWC and VEDAI proved that our
method can detect and classify with better accuracy. We faced
difficulty to differentiate between camping cars and big vans
because of the region set for car and truck. Partially occluded
objects are not detected. Even though our method can
distinguish intra class objects, identifying appropriate region
size is to be strengthened.
Our future work is to detect the objects with partial
occlusion and to identify the appropriate region size to
distinguish intra-class vehicles. The proposed system will be
evaluated on other objects such as ships, aircraft and its usage
in on-board system so as to fine tune the system that can
detect generic objects.
REFERENCES
[1] Shenquan Qu, Ying Wang, Gaofeng Meng, and Chunhong Pan(2016),
Vehicle Detection in Satellite Images by Incorporating Objectness and
Convolutional Neural Network, Journal of Industrial and Intelligent
Information Vol. 4, No. 2, March 2016, pp:158-162
[2] Qiling Jiang, Liujuan Cao, Ming Cheng, Cheng Wang, Jonathan
Li(2015), Deep neural networks-based vehicle detection in satellite
images, Conference: 2015 International Symposium on Bioelectronics
and Bioinformatics (ISBB)
[3] Yohei Koga, Hiroyuki Miyazaki and Ryosuke Shibasaki(2018), A CNN-
Based Method of Vehicle Detection from Aerial Images Using Hard
Example Mining, Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 124; pp:1-21,
doi:10.3390/rs10010124
[4] Mundhenk, T.N.; Konjevod, G.; Sakla, W.A.; Boakye, K(2016). A
Large Contextual Dataset for Classification, Detection and Counting of
Cars with Deep Learning. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
Proceedings of the ECCV 2016: Springer: Volume 9907, pp. 785–800
[5] Razakarivony, S. and Jurie, F. (2015) Vehicle Detection in Aerial
Imagery: A Small Target Detection Benchmark. Journal of Visual
Communication & Image Representation, 34, 187-203.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvcir.2015.11.002
[6] Cars Overhead With Context (COWC)(2018)
https://gdo152.llnl.gov/cowc/ , Last accessed August 1st 2018.
[7] Pretrained Weight file(2019)
https://pjreddie.com/media/files/yolov3.weights, February 1st 2019
[8] Tianyu Tang,Shilin Zhou, Zhipeng Deng, Lin Lei and Huanxin
Zou(2017), Arbitrary-Oriented Vehicle Detection in Aerial Imagery with
Single Convolutional Neural Networks, Remote Sensing,2017,9, 1170
[9] Chuan-Pin Lu, Jiun-Jian Liaw ,Tzu-Ching Wu andTsung-Fu
Hung(2019) Development of a Mushroom Growth Measurement System
Applying Deep Learning for Image Recognition, Agronomy 2019, 9(1),
32;pp:1-21
[10] S. Vasavi, Reshma Shaik, Sahithi Yarlagadda(2018). "chapter 12
Moving Object Classification in a Video Sequence Using Invariant
Feature Extraction", IGI Global, 2018
[11] Murphy, Kevin (2012). Machine Learning: A Probabilistic Perspective.
MIT.
[12] David Yu(2018), Parking Lot Vehicle Detection Using
Deep Learning,2018 https://medium.com/geoai/parking-lot-vehicle-
detection-using-deep-learning-49597917bc4a, Last accessed 23-9-2018
[13] Junyan Lu, Chi Ma, Li Li, Xiaoyan Xing, Yong Zhang, Zhigang Wang,
Jiuwei Xu(2018), A Vehicle Detection Method for Aerial Image Based
1558-1748 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Carleton University. Downloaded on July 16,2020 at 14:15:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
9
on YOLO, Journal of Computer and Communications, 2018, PP. 98-
107.
[14] Joseph Redmon, Ali Farhadi(2019), YOLOv3: An Incremental
Improvement, arXiv:1804.02767, Mar. 2018, [online] Available:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.02767.
[15] Konoplich, G.V.; Putin, E.O.(2016); Filchenkov, A.A. Application of
deep learning to the problem of vehicle detection in UAV images. In
Proceedings of the 2016 XIX IEEE International Conference on Soft
Computing and Measurements (SCM), St. Petersburg, Russia, 25–27
May 2016; pp. 4–6.
[16] Cai, Z.; Fan, Q.; Feris, R.S.; Vasconcelos, N(2016). A unified multi-
scale deep Convolutional neural network for fast object detection. In
Proceedings of the 2016 European Conference on Computer Vision,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 8–16 October 2016; pp. 354–370.
[17] Azam, S.; Rafique, A.; Jeon, M(2016). Vehicle pose detection using
region based convolutional neural network. In Proceedings of the
International Conference on Control, Automation and Information
Sciences (ICCAIS), Ansan, Korea, 27–29 October 2016; pp. 194–198.
[18] Tang, T.; Zhou, S.; Deng, Z.; Zou, H.; Lei, L(2017). Vehicle detection
in aerial images based on region convolutional neural networks and hard
negative example mining. Sensors 2017, 17, 336.
[19] Sang, J.; Guo, P.; Xiang, Z.; Luo, H.; Chen(2017), X. Vehicle detection
based on faster R-CNN. J. Chongqing Univ(NatSciEd)2017, 40, 32–36.
[20] Adam Van Etten(2018), Satellite Imagery Multiscale Rapid Detection
with Windowed Networks, Computer Vision and Pattern
Recognition,2018,pp:1-12
[21] Qu T., Zhang Q., Sun S(2017). Vehicle detection from high-resolution
aerial images using spatial pyramid pooling-based deep convolutional
neural networks. Multimedia Tools Appl. 2017;76:21651–21663
[22] Tang T., Zhou S., Deng Z., Zou H., Lei L(2017). Vehicle detection in
aerial images based on region convolutional neural networks and hard
negative example mining. Sensors. 2017;17:336
[23] Darknet(2018),
https://github.com/pjreddie/darknet/blob/master/cfg/darknet53.cfg, last
accessed 12-09-2018
[24] Loss functions(2019), https://ml-
cheatsheet.readthedocs.io/en/latest/loss_functions.html, Last accessed on
2-2-2019
[25] Adam Van Etten(2018), You Only Look Twice: Rapid Multi-Scale
Object Detection In Satellite Imagery, pp:1-8,2018
[26] Dmitry Sincha, Mikhail Chervonenkis and Pavel Skribtsov(2016)
Vehicle Detection and Classification in Aerial Images, Indian Journal of
Science and Technology, Vol 9(48), 2016, pp:1-7
[27] Jiandan Zhong, Tao Lei and Guangle Yao(2017), Robust Vehicle
Detection in Aerial Images Based on Cascaded Convolutional Neural
Networks, Sensors 2017, 17, 2720;pp:1-17
[28] Shugang Zhang, Zhiqiang Wei, Jie Nie, Lei Huang, Shuang Wang, and
Zhen Li, A Review on Human Activity Recognition Using Vision-Based
Method, Journal of Healthcare Engineering, Volume 2017
[29] Guo X. Hu, Zhong Yang, Lei Hu, Li Huang, and Jia M. Han, Small
Object Detection with Multiscale Features, International Journal of
Digital Multimedia Broadcasting, Volume 2018, Article ID 4546896, 10
pages,2018
[30] Huang, Xiaohui, Pan He, Anand Rangarajan, and Sanjay Ranka(2019).
"Intelligent Intersection: Two-Stream Convolutional Networks for Real-
time Near Accident Detection in Traffic Video." arXiv preprint
arXiv:1901.01138 (2019).
[31] Kim, Daeho, Meiyin Liu, SangHyun Lee, and Vineet R. Kamat(2019).
"Remote proximity monitoring between mobile construction resources
using camera-mounted UAVs." Automation in Construction 99 (2019):
168-182.
[32] Zhang, Huan, Cai Meng, Xiangzhi Bai, and Zhaoxi Li(2018). "Rock-
ring detection accuracy improvement in infrared satellite image with
sub-pixel edge detection." IET Image Processing 13, no. 5 (2018): 729-
735.
[33] Hadj-Sahraoui, Omar, Hadria Fizazi, Faouzi Berrichi, Djemoui
Chamakhi, and Lahcen Wahib Kebir(2010). "High-resolution DEM
building with SAR interferometry and high-resolution optical
image." IET Image Processing 13, no. 5 (2019): 713-721.
[34] Atta, Randa, and Mohammad Ghanbari(2013). "Low-contrast satellite
images enhancement using discrete cosine transform pyramid and
singular value decomposition." IET Image processing 7, no. 5 (2013):
472-483.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JSEN.2020.3007883, IEEE Sensors
Journal
Sensors-30790-2020 10

[35] K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman(2015), “Very Deep Convolutional Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 432-441, Jan.
Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition,” CoRR, vol. 2018, doi: 10.1109/TIP.2017.2762591.
abs/1409.1556, 2014 [54] J. M. Gandarias, A. J. García-Cerezo and J. M. Gómez-de-
[36] Rivas-López, M., Gomez-Sanchez, C. A., Rivera-Castillo, J., Gabriel(2019), "CNN-Based Methods for Object Recognition With
Sergiyenko, O., Flores-Fuentes, W., Rodríguez-Quiñonez, J. C., & High-Resolution Tactile Sensors," in IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 19, no.
Mayorga-Ortiz, P. (2015, June). Vehicle detection using an infrared light 16, pp. 6872-6882, 15 Aug.15, 2019, doi: 10.1109/JSEN.2019.2912968.
emitter and a photodiode as visualization system. In 2015 IEEE 24th [55] H. Chen, Z. He, B. Shi and T. Zhong(2019), "Research on Recognition
International Symposium on Industrial Electronics (ISIE) (pp. 972-975). Method of Electrical Components Based on YOLO V3," in IEEE
IEEE. Access, vol. 7, pp. 157818-157829, 2019, doi:
[37] Z. Zhang, M. Tao and H. Yuan(2015)(2015), "A Parking Occupancy 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2950053.
Detection Algorithm Based on AMR Sensor," in IEEE Sensors Journal, [56] J. Redmon, S. Divvala, R. Girshick and A. Farhadi(2016) "You only
vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 1261-1269, Feb. 2015, look once: Unified real-time object detection", Proc. IEEE Conf.
doi: 10.1109/JSEN.2014.2362122. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. (CVPR), pp. 779-788, Jun. 2016.
[38] R. Sundar, S. Hebbar and V. Golla(2015), "Implementing Intelligent [57] J. Redmon and A. Farhad(2017)i, "YOLO9000: Better faster stronger",
Traffic Control System for Congestion Control, Ambulance Clearance, Proc. CVPR, pp. 7263-7271, Jul. 2017.
and Stolen Vehicle Detection," in IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 15, no. 2, [58] Ramírez-Hernández, L. R., Rodríguez-Quiñonez, J. C., Castro-Toscano,
pp. 1109-1113, Feb. 2015, doi: 10.1109/JSEN.2014.2360288. M. J., Hernández-Balbuena, D., Flores-Fuentes, W., Rascón-Carmona,
[39] R. Madli, S. Hebbar, P. Pattar and V. Golla(2015), "Automatic R.,& Sergiyenko, O. (2020). Improve three-dimensional point
Detection and Notification of Potholes and Humps on Roads to Aid localization accuracy in stereo vision systems using a novel camera
Drivers," in IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 4313-4318, Aug. calibration method. International Journal of Advanced Robotic
2015, doi: 10.1109/JSEN.2015.2417579. Systems, 17(1), 1729881419896717.
[40] X. Jin, S. Sarkar, A. Ray, S. Gupta and T. Damarla (2012), "Target [59] Ramírez-Hernández L.R. et al. (2020), Stereoscopic Vision Systems in
Detection and Classification Using Seismic and PIR Sensors," in IEEE Machine Vision, Models, and Applications. In: Sergiyenko O., Flores-
Sensors Journal, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 1709-1718, June 2012, doi: Fuentes W., Mercorelli P. (eds) Machine Vision and Navigation.
10.1109/JSEN.2011.2177257. Springer, Cham ISBN 978-3-030-22587-2, pp. 241-265, 2020.
[41] S. Tuermer, F. Kurz, P. Reinartz and U. Stilla (2013), "Airborne Vehicle
Detection in Dense Urban Areas Using HoG Features and Disparity
Maps," in IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth
Observations and Remote Sensing, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 2327-2337, Dec.
2013, doi: 10.1109/JSTARS.2013.2242846.
[42] Wang, Y.; Liu, Z.; Deng, W.(2019), Anchor Generation Optimization
and Region of Interest Assignment for Vehicle Detection. Sensors 2019,
19, 1089
[43] Yang, T.; Wang, X.; Yao, B.; Li, J.; Zhang, Y.; He, Z.; Duan (2016), W.
Small Moving Vehicle Detection in a Satellite Video of an Urban
Area. Sensors 2016, 16, 1528
[44] X. Chen, S. Xiang, C. Liu and C. Pan (2014), "Vehicle Detection in
Satellite Images by Hybrid Deep Convolutional Neural Networks," in
IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, vol. 11, no. 10, pp. 1797-
1801, Oct. 2014, doi: 10.1109/LGRS.2014.2309695.
[45] Z. Hu, D. Yang, K. Zhang and Z. Chen (2020), "Object Tracking in
Satellite Videos Based on Convolutional Regression Network With
Appearance and Motion Features," in IEEE Journal of Selected Topics
in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, vol. 13, pp. 783-
793, 2020, doi: 10.1109/JSTARS.2020.2971657.
[46] A. Bhattacharya and R. Vaughan (2020), "Deep Learning Radar Design
for Breathing and Fall Detection," in IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 20, no.
9, pp. 5072-5085, 1 May1, 2020, doi: 10.1109/JSEN.2020.2967100.
[47] L. Zhang, R. Wang and L. Cui (2011), "Real-time traffic monitoring
with magnetic sensor networks", J. Inf. Sci. Eng., vol. 27, no. 4, pp.
1473-1486, Jul. 2011.
[48] Y. Yu, H. Guan and Z. Ji(2015), "Rotation-Invariant Object Detection in
High-Resolution Satellite Imagery Using Superpixel-Based Deep Hough
Forests," in IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, vol. 12, no.
11, pp. 2183-2187, Nov. 2015, doi: 10.1109/LGRS.2015.2432135.
[49] L. Lindner et al. (2016), "Machine vision system for UAV navigation,"
2016 International Conference on Electrical Systems for Aircraft,
Railway, Ship Propulsion and Road Vehicles & International
Transportation Electrification Conference (ESARS-ITEC), Toulouse,
2016, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/ESARS-ITEC.2016.7841356.
[50] L. Sommer, T. Schuchert and J. Beyerer (2019), "Comprehensive
Analysis of Deep Learning-Based Vehicle Detection in Aerial Images,"
in IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology,
vol. 29, no. 9, pp. 2733-2747, Sept. 2019, doi:
10.1109/TCSVT.2018.2874396.
[51] J. Shen, N. Liu, H. Sun and H. Zhou(2019), "Vehicle Detection in Aerial
Images Based on Lightweight Deep Convolutional Network and
Generative Adversarial Network," in IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 148119-
148130, 2019, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2947143.
[52] C. Tao, L. Mi, Y. Li, J. Qi, Y. Xiao and J. Zhang (2019), "Scene
Context-Driven Vehicle Detection in High-Resolution Aerial Images,"
in IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 57, no.
10, pp. 7339-7351, Oct. 2019, doi: 10.1109/TGRS.2019.2912985.
[53] W. Chu, Y. Liu, C. Shen, D. Cai and X. Hua (2018), "Multi-Task
Vehicle Detection With Region-of-Interest Voting," in IEEE

1558-1748 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Carleton University. Downloaded on July 16,2020 at 14:15:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.