Detection of Face Mask using Convolutional

2023 International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communication and Applied Informatics (ACCAI) | 979-8-3503-1590-5/23/$31.00 ©2023 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/ACCAI58221.2023.10200890

Neural Network (CNN) based Real-Time Object

Detection Algorithm You Only Look Once-V3
(YOLO-V3) Compared with Single-Stage
Detector (SSD) Algorithm to Improve Precision
Abbas Shaik1, R.Thandaiah Prabu2 and S. Radhika3

Research Scholar1, Project Guide2, Corresponding Author3,

1,2,3
Department of ECE, 3Department of CSE, Saveetha School of Engineering, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences,
Saveetha University, Chennai, Tamilnadu, India, Pincode: 602105.

Email: thandaiahprabur.sse@saveetha.com, radhikas.sse@saveetha.com

Abstract- Proposed work refers to detect face masks
using a CNN based on a real-time object detection
algorithm in comparison to (Single Stage Detector)
SSD, Yolo-V3. The Yolo-V3 algorithm is proposed and
compared to the SSD algorithm. The sample size was
calculated using G power (80%), and it was discovered
to be 40. (i.e. For each group 20). There is a
statistically significant difference of 0.000637 (p<0.5)
between the two groups. The Yolo-V3 has an average
accuracy of 91.28 and the SSD has an average
precision value of 86.65. The Yolo-V3 algorithm has
improved for preventing the spread of COVID-19
through precautionary measures.
Keywords: Novel Yolo-v3, Single Stage Detection (SSD),
Face Mask Detection,Convolutional Neural Network,
COVID - 19, Object Detection.
I.INTRODUCTION
To improve precision, the study compares the design
of Face Mask Detection using CNN-based real-time
object detection algorithm Novel Yolo-V3 to SSD.
Even in this day and age, the COVID-19 virus is
regarded as a potentially fatal pathogen. Due to the
large number of people who are constantly moving
around and the lack of a sufficient task force and
resources to manage these people, it is not possible
to perform manual monitoring of social distance
standards. This is because of the large number of
people who are constantly moving around.
(Srinivasan et al. 2021) One-stage object detectors,
for some reason, have recently attracted a lot of
interest in recent times. The authors proposed a
"Single Stage Detector," or SSD, which has since
become the standard for the overwhelming majority
of one-stage object detectors that have been
published in recent years[1].In the second stage, a
refinement module is created based on these
proposals to provide a final prediction. These
methods produce better results. Inference, on the
other hand, usually takes much longer [2].This
research is mainly used in many organizations like
offices, Educational Institutions, etc., [3].
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
Since 2020 there are 109 papers in Google scholar
and 39 papers in Science direct that have been
published based on the prediction of COVID-19
using the proposed algorithm and existing algorithm.
The most helpful article was published by [4], and
its title is “Real-Time Single-Stage Vehicle Detector
optimized by Multi-Stage Image-based Online Hard
Example Mining.” [4] is responsible for publishing
this article. The best article was published by [4],
who is also responsible for that. In this part of the
paper, they discussed how the single-stage detector
achieved a significant step forward by effectively
creating an end-to-end framework for object
detection. This was a major accomplishment. This is
accomplished by recasting the detection of objects as
a singular regression problem, which is comparable
to the manner in which a CNN is utilized in the
process of image classification[5]. In this pandemic
situation, health is critical in everyone's life. Most
people are unaware of how to protect themselves and
their surroundings from this pandemic [6]. And the

Authorized licensed use limited to: Zhejiang University. Downloaded on March 18,2024 at 15:18:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
most cited article is as shown “An Application of
DeepLearning Techniques to Face Mask Detection
During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” which was done
by [7].Our company is a pioneer in a variety of
fields thanks to our commitment to conducting
research of the finest possible quality and our status
as an industry leader in a wide range of disciplines.
[8]–[15]
In the literature review, the face masks detection
utilizing the Novel Yolo-V3 algorithm is
demonstrated for examination. This is done so in
order to provide context. The findings indicate that
the precision value of the Novel Yolo-V3 algorithm
for the detection of face masks is noticeably higher
than that of the Single Stage Detector (SSD)
algorithm. The completion of this survey utilizing
the Novel Yolo-V3 algorithm that has a high gain
and performance is the ultimate goal of the survey.
III. PROPOSED METHOD
The Department of ECE at the Saveetha School of
Engineering, SIMATS, Chennai, is where its
research was conducted. The number of groups
taken to collect the samples for statistical analysis is
2. Group 1 contained a Novel Yolo-V3 and group 2
was the SSD. The total sample size obtained is 40
(i.e for each group 20). The specified sample
analysis is completed using the G power statistical
tool with a probability of 80%. A display with a
resolution of 1920x1080 pixels (2nd gen, Ryzen 5
series, 8GB RAM, 512 GB SSD) and a Matlab
program with suitable library and tool capabilities
are required to train these datasets. The results are
produced by the use of the MATLAB software [16].
In the sample preparation for group 1, the Novel
Yolo-V3 algorithm was chosen because it achieved
good detection in the target detection results. We
obtained 20 samples using this method. The
precision values were obtained using facial
recognition at various frames per second (frames per
second).
The sample groundwork for Group 2 was as follows:
As the result of target detection, the SSD algorithm
has been chosen which has achieved less detection.
We obtained 20 samples using this method. The
precision values were obtained using facial
recognition at various frames per second (frames per
second).
Authorized licensed use limited to: Zhejiang University. Downloaded on March 18,2024 at 15:18:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Precisely anticipated observations to all observations
ratio is used to calculate the accuracy of Novel
YoloV3 and Single Stage Detector (SSD). The
definition of accuracy may be found in Equation,
and it refers to the proportion of accurately predicted
positive observations to the total number of expected
positive observations. This ratio can be determined,
as was stated previously in the sentence. The recall
is the proportion of properly predicted positive
observations in relation to the total number of yes
observations made by the class as a whole. This
value is expressed as a percentage. The F1 Score is
calculated using a weighted average of the Accuracy
and Recovery scores.The phrase "true positive" (also
written as "true positive") denotes that a correct
prediction was made in relation to the actual case
label of COVID 19 patients, as indicated by the
abbreviation "TP." TN is an abbreviation that stands
for "true negative," and it indicates that a correct
prediction was made regarding the actual case label
of normal cases. In other words, a "true negative"
result was obtained. FP and False positive and false
negative are abbreviations for classification errors
that differ from their real case labels, respectively
[17].
IV. STASTICAL ANALYSIS
With the assistance of the statistical program SPSS,
the computing of the mean, standard deviation, and
significance, as well as the extraction of information
from the simulation tool, are all carried out
successfully. The amount of input and the frequency
with which it occurs are the two independent
variables that will be examined in this study. In this
experiment, the dependent variables that are being
studied are real-time object detection and CNN. We
used a test called a T-test on independent samples to
determine whether or not the difference that was
observed between the two groups was statistically
significant[18].
V. RESULTS
Figure.1 (a) and (b) resembles the sample real-time
object detection before simulation and the other
sample after the simulation using Novel Yolo-V3.
Fig.2. Diagrammatic Representation of Output
Graphs Novel YoloV3 with improved Accuracy
Compared to SSD. Fig.3: The Simple Bar graph for
Novel Yolo-V3 MSE is compared with the Novel
Yolo-v3 is higher in terms of MSE 92.2015 when
compared with SSD 86.7165. Variable results with
its standard deviation. There is a substantialvariance
between Yolo-V3 and Novel YoloV3 (p<0.05). X-
axis: Novel Yolo-V3 MSE vs Single Stage Detector
(SSD) Y-axis: Mean of MSE, with a 95%
confidence interval, for identifying keywords. Fig 4.
The graphic illustrates how the algorithm is set up,
trained, and deployed.

(a) (b)
FIGURE. 1 The above image resembles the sample real-time object detection before simulation and the other
sample after the simulation using Novel Yolo-V3.

FIGURE.2. Diagrammatic Representation of Output Graphs Novel Yolo-v3 with improved Accuracy
Compared to SSD

Table 1. Comparison of Novel Yolo-V3 and SSD. lower and upper interval difference, significance
The MSE of Novel Yolo-v3 is 94.81 and SSD has level of 0.000637, significance level of two-tailed,
83.26. Table 2. For Novel Yolo-V3 and SSD, the and all of these differences.
statistical calculations comprising mean, standard
deviation, and standard error mean. The Novel Yolo- TABLE 1. Comparison of Novel Yolo-V3 and SSD.
V3 Mean value is 92.2015 and the SSD is 86.7165. The MSE of Novel Yolo-V3 is 94.81 and SSD has
The Standard Deviation of NovelYolo-v3 is 1.51729 83.26.
and the Single Stage Detector (SSD) is 2.43127. Accuracy rate
Sl.No. Test Size
Novel Yolo-Standard v3's Error Mean is 0.33928 YOLO V3 SSD
and the SSD is 0.54365. Table 3. Between Novel 1 Test 1 90.1 89.21
Yolo-v3 and SSD, statistical computations for 2 Test 2 90.23 80.23
independent samples t-test. For the signal-to-noise 3 Test 3 90.19 84.19
ratio, 0.094 is the significance threshold. The 4 Test 4 90.54 85.54
comparison of Yolo-V3 and Single Stage Detector 5 Test 5 90.66 86.51
6 Test 6 91.53 87.23
(SSD) is done employing a 95% confidence interval
7 Test 7 91.76 87.58
for an independent sample t-test. This test includes
8 Test 8 92.32 88.19
the median difference, standard error difference,
9 Test 9 92.65 88.56

Authorized licensed use limited to: Zhejiang University. Downloaded on March 18,2024 at 15:18:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
10 Test 10 92.88 89.34 16 Test 16 92.62 89.23
11 Test 11 90.35 86.23 17 Test 17 94.74 84.26
12 Test 12 91.62 86.46 18 Test 18 93.97 88.62
13 Test 13 93.05 87.05 19 Test 19 93.26 84.69
14 Test 14 93.27 89.20 20 Test 20 94.81 83.26
15 Test 15 93.48 88.75

TABLE 2. For example, the mean, standard deviation, and mean standard error for Novel Yolo-V3 and SSD.
The Mean value of Novel Yolo-V3is 92.2015 and the SSD is 86.7165. The Standard Deviation of Novel
Yolov3 is 1.51729 and the SSD is 2.43127. The Standard Error Mean of Novel Yolo-v3 is 0.33928 and the
SSD is 0.54365.
GROUP STATISTICS
Sample N Mean Std.Dev Std.Err Mean
ACCURACY YOLO V3 20 92.2015 1.51729 0.33928
SSD 20 86.7165 2.43127 0.54365

TABLE 3. Between Novel Yolo-v3 and SSD, statistical computations for independent samples t-test. For the
signal-to-noise ratio, 0.094 is the significance threshold. The comparison of Yolo-v3 and SSD is done
employing a 95% confidence interval for an independent sample t-test. This test significance level of 0.01
Independent sample test
Levene's
Test for
T-test for Equality of Means
Equality of
Variances
Std. 95%
Mean
F Sig t df Sig(2tailed) Error Confidence
Diff
Diff Interval of the Diff
Equal Lower Upper
variances 2.946 .094 8.559 38 0.000637 5.48500 .64083
4.18771 6.78229
assumed
Accuracy Equal
variances
8.559 31.851 0.000637 5.48500 .64083 4.17943 6.79057
not
assumed

FIGURE.3: The Simple Bar graph for Novel Yolo-v3 MSE is compared with the Novel Yolo-v3 is higher in
terms of MSE 92.2015 when compared with SSD 86.7165. outcomes that are variable and have a standard
deviation. Between Yolo-v3 and Novel Yolo-v3, there is a significant difference (p 0.05 Independent sample
test). X-axis: SSD vs. Novel Yolo-v3 MSE. Mean of the Y-axis MSE, with a 95% confidence interval, for
identifying keywords

Authorized licensed use limited to: Zhejiang University. Downloaded on March 18,2024 at 15:18:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
FIGURE.4. The above flow chart describes the preparation, train model, and deployment of the algorithm.
VI. DISCUSSIONS
In the present investigation, the Yolo-V3's (group-1)
mean efficiency value was determined to be
92.2015. (92%). A value of 86.7165 is assigned to
the SSD (group2) in terms of its optical absorption
(86%). The data is statistically analysed and
tabulated, using data like mean, standard deviation,
the means of the standard errors, and so on. This
research study has a significant level of less than
5%, with a significance value of around 0.00637
(p<0.05).
The Real-Time Object Detection System on Mobile
Soccer Robot Using YOLO V3 was an earlier
project suggested by (Soebhakti et al. 2019) here he
said, It is also feasible to utilise object identification
techniques with the artificial neural network in
addition to the colour threshold approach in object
detection. This article supports the COVID-19
proposed work whereas another article opposes
which were “Small Boat Detection for Radar Image
Datasets with YOLO V3 Network”, It is conducted
by [19]it says that it was having less accuracy as
compared with some other articles. The Work of
CNN holds enormous promise for solving a wide
range of computer vision problems [20].The purpose
of the study is to carry out additional research on the
optical detection and tracking technology of
minimally invasive surgical tools, as well as conduct
a literature review and incorporate this information
into the project involving the surgical robot. In
addition, the study aims to conduct a review of the
relevant prior research. The findings of this research
Authorized licensed use limited to: Zhejiang University. Downloaded on March 18,2024 at 15:18:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
will be applied to various medical fields[21]. And
enormous ways it developed some of them are
autonomous vehicles, In order for a computer to
recognise and understand the features of things,
relevant features must first be extracted from a
digital image. This process is known as computer
vision. Deep learning techniques may now be used
to instantly detect objects, according to recent study
(Juyal, Sharma, and Matta 2021). Real-time scene
parsing through the use of object recognition is an
extremely difficult task since embedded devices
have a limited capacity for memory and computation
(Mao et al. 2019).
The existing research has a limitation in that Single
Stage Detector (SSD) is not well COVID-19
controlled for the required application. Future study
in this area will evaluate the effectiveness of Novel
Yolo-face V3's mask identification to that of Yolo-
V4 and R-CNN.
VII. CONCLUSION
This study shows that the Novel Yolo-V3 method
has a higher precision value in real-time face mask
detection than the Single Stage Detector (SSD)
method. The Novel Yolo-V3 has a higher accuracy
of 91.28 than the SSD, which has an accuracy of
86.65. The mean value is 92.2015, the mean of the
standard error is 0.33928 andthe average variation is
1.51729.
 REFERENCES [12] G. Chandrasekaran, et, al, “Test scheduling of System-onChip
using Dragonfly and Ant Lion optimization algorithms,” J.
Intell. Fuzzy Syst., pp. 1–13, Dec. 2020.
[1] W. Li, et al, “A Single-Shot Object Detector with Feature
[13] C. Saravanakumar, P. GururamaSenthilvel, D. R.
Aggregation and Enhancement,” 2019 IEEE ICIP 2019. doi:
Thirupurasundari, P. N. Periyasamy, K. Vijayakumar, 2021,
10.1109/icip.2019.8803543.
Plant syndrome recognition by Gigapixel Image using
[2] Z. Yang et. Al, “3DSSD: Point-Based 3D Single Stage Object
Convolutional Neural Network, ICASISET, EAI, DOI:
Detector,” 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on CVPR 2020.
10.4108/eai.16-5-2020.2304207.
doi:10.1109/cvpr42600.2020.01105.
[14] K. Murthykumar, A. Rajasekar, and G. Kaarthikeyan,
[3] M. Rizwan, “Face Mask Detection Using Deep Learning,”
“Assessment of various treatment modalities for isolated
SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3909350.
gingival recession defect- A retrospective study,” Int. J. Life
[4] C.-T. Lin, et, al. -Time Single-Stage Vehicle Detector
Sci. Pharma Res., vol. 11, no. SPL3, pp. 3–7, Aug. 2020.
Optimized by Multi-Stage Image-Based Online Hard Example
[15] Manimegalai, T., Ravishankar, T. N., Kannagi, L., Kannan, K.,
Mining,” IEEE Transactions on VT, vol.69, no. 2. pp. 1505–
&Anitha, G. (2022, April). A Novel approach for Data mining
1518, 2020. doi: 10.1109/tvt.2019.2961625.
Classification using J48DT Classifier for Intrusion Detection
[5] F. Akhyar, et, al, -stage Steel Surface Defect Detection,” 2019
System. (CSNT) (pp. 601-607). IEEE.
16th IEEE International Conference on AVSS 2019. doi:
[16] Gururaj, N., Vinod, V. &Vijayakumar, K. Deep grading of
10.1109/avss.2019.8909834.
mangoes using Convolutional Neural Network and Computer
[6] K. N. Baluprithviraj, et, al, “Artificial Intelligence based Smart
Vision. Multimed Tools Appl (2022).
Door with Face Mask Detection,” 2021 International
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-021-11616-2.
Conference (ICAIS) 2021. doi:
[17] G. Ramkumar et al (2021) “Distributed Crash Free Media
10.1109/icais50930.2021.9395807.
Access Control Protocol for Underwater Sensor Network”
[7] P. Khamlae, et, al, “An Application of Deep-Learning
(ICOEI), 2021, pp. 699-703, doi:
Techniques to Face Mask Detection During the COVID-19
10.1109/ICOEI51242.2021.9452819.
Pandemic,” 2021 IEEE 3rd Global Conference on LifeTech
[18] Y.-S. Chu et al., “Adaptively Learning and Assessing SPSS
2021. doi: 10.1109/lifetech52111.2021.9391922.
Operating Skills Using Online SPSS Simulator,” 2010
[8] Geethika B, A. Rajasekar, and M. Chaudary, “Comparison of
International Conference on ICTAAI, 2010. doi:
periodontal status among pregnant and nonpregnant women,”
10.1109/taai.2010.70.
Int. J. Life Sci. Pharma Res., vol. 11, no. SPL3, pp. 1923–1926,
[19] G. Li, Z. Song, and Q. Fu, “Small Boat Detection for Radar
Dec. 2020.
Image Datasets with YOLO V3 Network,” (ICSIDP). 2019.
[9] D. KaliaperumalRukmani et al., “A New Approach to Optimal
doi: 10.1109/icsidp47821.2019.9173163.
Location and Sizing of DSTATCOM in Radial Distribution
[20] R. Ali, et al, “Structural crack detection using deep
Networks Using Bio-Inspired Cuckoo Search Algorithm,”
convolutional neural networks,” Automation in Construction,
Energies, vol. 13, no. 18,p. 4615, Sep. 2020.
vol. 133. p. 103989, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2021.103989.
[10] Anitha, G., Ramkumar, G, et al, (2022, January). A Novel Data
[21] Y. Wang, et al, “Visual detection and tracking algorithms for
Communication with Security Enhancement using Threat
minimally invasive surgical instruments: A comprehensive
Management Scheme over Wireless Mobile Networks. In 2022
review of the state-of-the-art,” Robotics and Autonomous
International Conference on ACCAI, (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
Systems, vol. 149. p. 103945, 2022. doi:
[11] T. Chakraborty, et, al, “A Review of Prolonged Post-COVID-19
10.1016/j.robot.2021.103945.
Symptoms and Their Implications on Dental Management,” Int.
J. Environ. Res. Public Health, vol. 18, no. 10, May 2021, doi:
10.3390/ijerph18105131.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Zhejiang University. Downloaded on March 18,2024 at 15:18:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.