À propos de cet article
Publié en ligne: 28 mars 2024
Pages: 1 - 9
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ijanmc-2024-0001
Mots clés
© 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 |