Laser & Optoelectronics Progress, Volume. 55, Issue 11, 113004(2018)
Pigment Spectral Matching Recognition Method Based on Adaptive Edit Distance
Figures & Tables(12)
Fig. 2. Spectral reflectance curves of same pigment under different collection conditions
Table 1. Matching results of ED algorithm
View tableTable 1. Matching results of ED algorithm
Sample data Test data Sampling point number e dR 1R 2662 186 R 1R 3662 119
Table 2. Matching results using ED algorithm and ATED algorithm
View tableTable 2. Matching results using ED algorithm and ATED algorithm
Sample data Algorithm Test data Sampling point number e dMatching rate /% R 1ED R 2662 186 71.98 R 1R 3119 82.15 R 1ATED R 2662 43 93.51 R 1R 322 96.67
Table 3. Matching accuracy of ATED algorithm at different spectral resolutions
View tableTable 3. Matching accuracy of ATED algorithm at different spectral resolutions
Sample data Test data Sampling point number e dMatching rate /% R 1R 2331 22 93.35 R 1R 311 96.67 R 1R 2166 11 93.37 R 1R 36 96.39 R 1R 283 6 92.77 R 1R 33 96.39 R 1R 242 3 92.86 R 1R 32 95.24
Table 4. Spectral matching results of four kinds of algorithms
View tableTable 4. Spectral matching results of four kinds of algorithms
Sample pigment Test pigment Matching ratio /% SAM SCF SID ATED Malachite Malachite 94.98 97.63 97.78 99.13 Azurite Azurite 96.87 97.74 97.95 99.36 Minium Minium 95.38 95.35 96.85 100.00 Clammeal Clammeal 97.33 96.43 96.38 99.15 Dahong Dahong 95.36 95.34 98.24 98.95 Indigo Indigo 96.35 98.46 96.13 99.33 Blush Blush 95.11 97.58 97.34 98.86 Gamboge Gamboge 96.35 96.37 96.37 99.26 Azure Azure 97.51 97.56 97.28 98.67 Madder Madder 96.23 96.23 96.74 100.00 Hematite Hematite 95.24 96.34 98.16 99.84 Cinnabar Cinnabar 97.43 97.56 97.68 98.17
Table 5. Matching results of test pigment dahong
View tableTable 5. Matching results of test pigment dahong
Sample pigment SAM algorithm SCF algorithm SID algorithm ATED algorithm Matching rate /% Result Matching rate /% Result Matching rate /% Result Matching rate /% Result Minium 89.41 94.75 97.27 91.54 Dahong 92.06 97.62 98.52 100.00 Blush 92.56 Blush 98.43 Blush 98.39 Dahong 96.98 Dahong Madder 86.59 94.66 96.04 86.40 Hematite 88.70 97.37 95.76 96.07 Hematite 89.41 93.48 96.55 95.02
Table 6. Matching results of test pigment hematite
View tableTable 6. Matching results of test pigment hematite
Sample pigment SAM algorithm SCF algorithm SID algorithm ATED algorithm Matching rate /% Result Matching rate /% Result Matching rate /% Result Matching rate /% Result Minium 92.79 96.34 93.64 94.34 Dahong 88.16 97.24 95.12 95.15 Blush 83.80 Cinnabar 95.17 Hematite 94.31 Madder 96.21 Hematite Madder 86.75 94.58 97.95 94.36 Hematite 94.05 98.55 92.35 99.18 Cinnabar 96.13 96.12 95.45 96.38
Table 7. Matching results of test pigment blush
View tableTable 7. Matching results of test pigment blush
Sample pigment SAM algorithm SCF algorithm SID algorithm ATED algorithm Matching rate /% Result Matching rate /% Result Matching rate /% Result Matching rate /% Result Minium 93.26 93.82 93.78 96.42 Dahong 95.42 95.43 98.14 98.31 Blush 92.18 Dahong 96.13 Cinnabar 96.45 Dahong 99.75 Blush Madder 93.33 96.07 95.23 97.23 Hematite 90.24 95.39 93.28 95.13 Cinnabar 91.12 97.48 97.35 96.14
Tools
Get Citation
Copy Citation Text
Ke Wang, Huiqin Wang, Ying Yin, Li Mao, Yi Zhang. Pigment Spectral Matching Recognition Method Based on Adaptive Edit Distance[J]. Laser & Optoelectronics Progress, 2018, 55(11): 113004
Paper Information
Category: Spectroscopy
Received: Apr. 26, 2018
Accepted: May. 28, 2018
Published Online: Aug. 14, 2019
The Author Email: Ke Wang (wangke@xauat.edu.cn), Huiqin Wang (hqwang@xauat.edu.cn)
© Copyright 2018-2021 | Chinese Laser Press.
All Rights Reserved 沪ICP备15018463号-20