About this article
Published Online: Mar 28, 2024
Page range: 1 - 9
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ijanmc-2024-0001
Keywords
© 2024 Ruocheng Ma et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Figure 10.
Figure 11.
Comparative experimental results of different models
| Accuracy\Model | Category 1 Accuracy | Category 2 Accuracy | Category 3 Accuracy | Category 4 Accuracy | Average accuracy |
| MAML | 82.16% | 72.45% | 81.3% | 85.97% | 80.47% |
| MAML-New | 86.42% | 79.70% | 87.17% | 89.19% | 85.62% |
| ResNet 18-layers | 81.7% | 62.1% | 82.4% | 90.1% | 73.45% |
| LSTM | 81.1% | 68.0% | 80.8% | 80.3% | 77.55% |
Partial network parameter values for MAML and MAML-New
| Parameter | Value | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| epoch | 600 | Training epochs |
| k | 4 | Number of sample categories |
| k_spt | 20 | Number of support set samples |
| k_qry | 30 | Number of query set samples |
| imgsz | 180 | Dimension of input data |
| imgc | 1 | Number of channels for input data |
| task_num (batch_size) | 16 | Training batch of samples |
| meta_lr | 1e-3 | First gradient update learning rate |
| update_lr | 0.01 | Second gradient update learning rate |