Abstract
Background: Daily inspections of insulators are necessary because they are indispensable components for power transmission lines. Using deep learning to monitor insulators is a newly developed method. However, most deep learning-based detection methods rely on a large training sample set, which consumes computing resources and increases the workload of sample labeling. The selection of learning models to monitor insulators becomes problematic.
Objective: Through comparative analysis, a model suitable for small-sample insulator learning is found to provide a reference for the research and application of insulator detection.
Methods: This paper compares some of the latest deep learning models, YOLOv7, SSD, and DETR, for insulator detection based on small-sample learning. The small sample here means that the number of samples and their proportion to the total sample are relatively small. Two public insulator image sets, InsulatorDataSet with 600 insulator images and Transmission-line-pictures (TLP) with 1230 insulator images in the natural background are selected to test the performance of these models.
Results: Tests on two public insulator image sets, InsulatorDataSet and TLP, show that the recognition rates of YOLOv7, DETR, and SSD are arranged from high to low. The DETR and the YOLOv7 have stable performance, while the SSD lacks stable performance in terms of the learning time and recognition rate.
Conclusion: The in-domain and cross-domain scenario tests show that YOLOv7 is more suitable for insulator detection under small-sample conditions among the three models.
Graphical Abstract
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11042-018-6610-4]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2018.2871750]
Columbus, Ohio, USA [http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2014.81]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2016.2577031] [PMID: 27295650]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en12071204]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s21041033] [PMID: 33546245]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00202-020-01099-z]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2018.2844175] [PMID: 29994331]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/1.JEI.28.5.053011]
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA [http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2016.91]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TPWRD.2019.2944741]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/electronics10070771]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1544/1/012117]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en14051426]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app12031207]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/electronics12040933]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2378/1/012073]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/8955292] [PMID: 36097557]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14106066]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en16062706]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.08.027]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2022.928164]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s22228801] [PMID: 36433397]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/coatings13050880]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1748/4/042012]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2021.3085139]