sensors

Communication
A Classification Method for Electronic Components Based on
Siamese Network
Yahui Cheng, Aimin Wang * and Long Wu

School of Mechanical Engineering, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China

* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-135-2266-2896

Abstract: In the field of electronics manufacturing, electronic component classification facilitates

the management and recycling of the functional and valuable electronic components in electronic
waste. Current electronic component classification methods are mainly based on deep learning,
which requires a large number of samples to train the model. Owing to the wide variety of electronic
components, collecting datasets is a time-consuming and laborious process. This study proposed a
Siamese network-based classification method to solve the electronic component classification problem
for a few samples. First, an improved visual geometry group 16 (VGG-16) model was proposed as
the feature extraction part of the Siamese neural network to improve the recognition performance
of the model under small samples. Then, a novel channel correlation loss function that allows
the model to learn the correlation between different channels in the feature map was designed to
further improve the generalization performance of the model. Finally, the nearest neighbor algorithm
was used to complete the classification work. The experimental results show that the proposed
method can achieve high classification accuracy under small sample conditions and is robust for
electronic components with similar appearances. This improves the classification quality of electronic
components and reduces the training sample collection cost.

Keywords: electronic components classification; Siamese network; few-shot learning; vgg; channel
Citation: Cheng, Y.; Wang, A.; Wu, L.
A Classification Method for
correlation loss
Electronic Components Based on
Siamese Network. Sensors 2022, 22,
6478. https://doi.org/10.3390/
s22176478
1. Introduction
Electronic components are important parts of electronic devices that are significant
Academic Editors: Federico Alimenti
to signal amplification, power transmission, and Boolean operations. They are widely
and Marcin Woźniak
used in smartphones, laptops, and other electronic products owing to their excellent
Received: 18 July 2022 performance. However, with the advancement of technology, the research and development
Accepted: 25 August 2022 cycle of electronic products has become shorter, resulting in a faster iteration of electronic
Published: 28 August 2022 products; thus, many obsolete electronic products become electronic waste. These electronic
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral wastes have many electronic components that are still intact. These electronic components
with regard to jurisdictional claims in contain materials valuable for producing electronic products [1,2]. Therefore, electronic
published maps and institutional affil- component classification in these wastes can be better managed for recycling. Current
iations. electronic component classification methods mainly rely on experienced staff. In practice,
however, there are many different categories of electronic components. Some modern
capacitors and resistors are small-surface-mounted, and they look very similar, making it
difficult for even experienced staff to classify similar components. This is not only time-
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. consuming but also laborious, and it is also easy to misclassify electronic components with
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. a similar appearance. At the same time, this requires a high level of skill. Therefore, a
This article is an open access article new classification method needs to be developed to reduce the probability of classification
distributed under the terms and
errors and improve work efficiency.
conditions of the Creative Commons
With the development of deep learning, image classification techniques have made
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
great progress owing to the excellent performance of convolutional neural networks
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
(CNNs). They have become the primary method for solving image classification problems
4.0/).

Sensors 2022, 22, 6478. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22176478 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors

Sensors 2022, 22, 6478 2 of 11

and have been widely applied in many fields [3,4]. Li et al. proposed a new lightweight
RegNet model to address the identification of apple leaf diseases rapidly and accurately [5].
Masci et al. proposed a Max-pooling CNN for the classification of steel defects [6]. Zhang
et al. presented a new classification method to deal with the breast cancer classification
problem by combining a graph neural network (GCN) and convolutional neural network
(CNN) [7]. Cai et al. used a novel resolution-aware model for the fine-grained classification
of low-resolution images [8]. Wu et al. proposed a novel cross-channel reconstruction
network (CCR-Net) for remote sensing image classification [9]. Mou et al. proposed a
semisupervised nonlocal graph convolutional network(GCN) for hyperspectral image (HSI)
classification [10].
In recent years, several researchers have focused on solving the problem of electronic
component classification in the field of electronics manufacturing. Lefkaditis et al. pre-
sented a classification algorithm for electronic components which combines support vector
machines (SVMs) and multilayer perceptrons (MLPs) with 92.3% accuracy [11]. Atik used
CNNs to classify electronic components into three categories (capacitors, diodes, and re-
sistors) to reduce labor intensity and improve efficiency, with a classification accuracy
of 98.99% [12]. Salvador et al. combined transfer learning and deep CNNs to classify
discrete and surface mounts on electronic prototypes with 94.64% accuracy [13]. Wang
et al. proposed a feature selection method using artificial neural networks (ANNs) and
two-dimensional patterns of electronic components to classify efficiently and accurately dif-
ferent package types, achieving 95.8% classification accuracy [14]. Conventional electronic
component image classification methods cannot effectively combine multiple deep learning
features and have poor classifier performance. Their parameters are difficult to optimize,
and network convergence is slow. Hu et al. introduced a hierarchical CNN to classify
different electronic components with 94.26% accuracy [15]. Although deep learning-based
electronic component classification algorithms have achieved better performance, these
studies still have some limitations. On the one hand, training neural networks requires a
large number of samples to obtain better generalization performance. This process of col-
lecting samples is expensive because of the wide variety of electronic components. If only a
few samples are used for training, then the model is prone to overfitting, which leads to
the degradation of the recognition performance of the model. On the other hand, to be able
to recycle electronic components in e-waste more efficiently, a fine-grained classification of
different types of electronic components is required; however, these studies only carried out
coarse-grained classification of electronic components. A Siamese network is a symmetric
neural network that measures the similarity of a pair of images and is widely applied to
solve small sample learning problems [16]. The Siamese network was first introduced
by Bromley et al. to solve the signature verification problem [17]. Chopra et al. used
convolutional neural networks as the feature extraction part of the Siamese network to
address the face verification problem [18]. Some variants have also been developed based
on Siamese networks [19,20]. To achieve high classification accuracy with a small number
of samples, this study proposed a classification method for electronic components based
on the Siamese network, which was used to address the problem that current electronic
component classification methods are not applicable to small sample learning. The main
contributions of this study are as follows:
(1) The VGG-16 network was selected for the feature extraction part of the Siamese
network. The shallow feature maps containing more fine-grained information were fused
with the higher-level feature maps containing more semantic information in this model to
boost the recognition performance of the model considering limited samples.
(2) To improve further the generalization performance of the model, a channel-
correlation loss function was designed to assist the model in learning the correlation
between different channels in the feature map.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 describes the Siamese
network architecture and the datasets used in this study; Section 3 describes the proposed
Sensors 2022, 22, 6478 3 of 11

methodology; Section 4 presents the experimental setup, results, and analysis; finally,
Section 5 summarizes the conclusions of this study.

2. Siamese Network Architecture and Dataset

2.1. Siamese Network
The Siamese network is used to solve few-shot learning [17,18,21,22]. Figure 1
shows the Siamese network architecture. This network receives a pair of images. Sub-
sequently, two identical feature-extraction subnetworks separately map the pair into a
high-dimensional feature space and correlate them using an energy function to determine
the similarity of the two images. The two feature-extraction subnetworks share weights,
ensuring that the two objects are similarly distant in the high-dimensional feature space.
The energy function at the top was used to measure the distance metric between the outputs
of each subnetwork.

Figure 1. Siamese network architecture diagram.

2.2. Dataset
Seventeen different electronic components were captured using a camera to verify the
effectiveness of the method proposed in this study, as shown in Figure 2. For simplicity,
n ∈ [1, 2, . . . , 17] was used to label the different types of electronic components from left to
right and top to bottom. Each electronic component contains 182 images. The orientation
and position of the electronic component in each image is different. During training,
2/5/10/15 images were randomly selected from each category to train the model. The
remaining unselected images were used as the test set to evaluate the model’s performance.
It is worth noting that each training sample in the training process consisted of two images
from the same category or two images from different categories.
Sensors 2022, 22, 6478 4 of 11

Figure 2. Different kinds of electronic components.

3. Method
3.1. Improved VGG-16 Model
Figure 3 shows the VGG-16 [23] CNN architecture. A subnetwork of five convolutional
blocks first extracts the image for feature extraction, and the extracted features are fed into
three subsequent fully connected layers for classification. Each convolutional block consists
of convolutional layers, activation functions, and a maximum pooling layer. The first two
convolutional blocks contain two convolutional layers, and the last three convolutional
blocks contain three convolutional layers. All convolutional layers use a 3 × 3 convolutional
kernel. The activation function is a rectified linear unit (ReLU) [24], and the feature
map is halved in height and width after passing through the maximum pooling layer. A
dropout [25] with 0.5 probability is used to mitigate model overfitting in the first three
fully connected layers after the fifth convolutional block. Finally, the classification result is
obtained by the softmax operation.

Figure 3. VGG-16 model architecture.

In order to improve the discriminative performance of the model under small sample
conditions, the improved VGG-16 model was proposed and denoted as VGG-16-F. Figure 4
shows the classification model using VGG-16-F as the feature extraction part of the Siamese
network. In practical applications, the model complexity is usually considered, which is
measured by floating-point operations (FLOPs) and the number of parameters. Therefore,
the last three fully connected layers in VGG-16 are deprecated to reduce the computational
overhead and model complexity. In addition, considering that the feature map obtained
from the low-level convolutional layer has more fine-grained information about the object,
the feature map obtained from the conv1_1 convolutional layer was downsampled by a
Sensors 2022, 22, 6478 5 of 11

factor of two and concatenated with the feature map obtained from the conv2_1 convolu-
tional layer in the channel dimension. The same operation was performed on the result and
feature map generated by the conv3_1 layer. Finally, after passing through three consecutive
downsampling layers, a fusion operation with the feature map from p5 is performed to
obtain F. The downsampling layer adopts a 3 × 3 convolutional kernel and stride size of 2.
The distance between the flattened F and output of the other branch of the Siamese network
is calculated. Specifically, Equation (1) is used as the energy function.

Fo = | F1 − F2 | (1)

where F1 and F2 denote the feature vector from different branches of the Siamese network,
respectively, and Fo denotes the output feature vector after the element-by-element differ-
ence and absolute value operations are performed on F1 and F2 . Subsequently, the similarity
S between the two is obtained after passing through two fully connected layers whose
hidden units are 256 and 1, respectively. The dropout rate was set to 0.1, and the activation
function was sigmoid. S is 1 if the two images are from the same class; otherwise, S is 0.

Figure 4. Proposed Siamese network model architecture.

3.2. Loss Function

The loss function is used as the optimization objective of the training model, which
is minimized to reduce the gap between the predicted value and label. Koch et al. [26]
employed cross-entropy loss with L2 regularization to train a Siamese network. Cross-
entropy loss is defined as follows:

Lv = − Llogp − (1 − L)log(1 − p) (2)

where p denotes the output of the Siamese network, and L is the label of the two images I1
and I2 fed into the Siamese network. L is 1 if the images are from the same class; otherwise,
it is 0.
In the field of image style transfer, Gatys et al. employed a feature space consisting
of correlations between different filter responses to obtain a style representation of an
input image and reduce the difference in style between the generated image and this input
image by minimizing the style loss [27]. Inspired by their work, the channel correlation
Sensors 2022, 22, 6478 6 of 11

loss Lc that allows the model to learn channel-to-channel correlation was designed and
optimized together with Lv to further improve the generalization performance of the model
with limited samples. For images from different classes, the correlation between different
channels in their respective output feature maps is distinct; therefore, it is beneficial to
allow the neural network to learn about the correlation between them. The feature map of
the mth layer is denoted as Fm ∈ Rcm ×hm ×wm , where cm , hm and wm refer to the number of
channels, height, and width of the layers, respectively. Subsequently, the feature map on
each channel is expanded into a vector, thus obtaining a matrix Fm0 of size cm × sm , that is,
 
f1
 f2 
Fm0 =  (3)
 
.. 
 . 
f cm
where sm = hm × wm . Thereafter, matrix Qm ∈ Rcm ×sm is obtained by normalizing f i ,
i ∈ [1, 2, . . . , cm ] according to Equation (4).

fi
qi = (4)
k f i k2 + ε

where ε is a small positive constant used to maintain numerical stability, which is set to 10−8
in the experiments. Based on the above discussion, the Gram matrix G m = Qm Qm T ∈ Rc m × c m

for the mth layer is obtained. Gram matrix of I1 is denoted as G and that of I2 as G2m .
1m

From this, we can obtain the similarity between the two as follows:

Dm = ∑ ∑ Wijm ( Gij1m − Gij2m ) ( Gij1m − Gij2m ) (5)

i j

where Gijm is located in the ith row and jth column of the Gram matrix; and Wijm is located
in the ith row and jth column of the weight matrix W m . This weight matrix is obtained by
softmax operation on each row, which is defined as

W m = so f tmax ( G1m ) (6)

The channel correlation loss function can then be defined as

Lc = ∑ LDm + (1 − L)e− Dm (7)

m

where m ∈ {conv1_1, conv2_1, conv3_1, conv4_1, conv5_1}.

Therefore, the total loss is written as

L = Lv + Lc (8)

During training, the cross-entropy loss Lv and channel correlation loss Lc are mini-
mized to allow the Siamese network to learn to discriminate whether two images are input
to the same class.

4. Experiment Results and Discussion

4.1. Experimental Details
In this study, all experiments were conducted under the same conditions. The graphics
processing unit adopted was GeForce GTX 1060 (6 GB). The model was built using the
PyTorch deep learning framework. The total number of training epochs was 120, and the
Adam optimizer [28] was used to update the model’s parameters, where β 1 = 0.9, and
β 2 = 0.999. The batch size was four. The initial learning rate lr was set to 0.0001. The
learning rate was dynamically adjusted in each epoch T according to lr T +1 = 0.92lr T . The
size of the image used in the training model was 112 × 112. For the convolutional layer, the
Sensors 2022, 22, 6478 7 of 11

weights were initialized using He initialization [29] and the biases were initialized to 0. For
the fully connected network, the weights were initialized using a normal distribution with
a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 0.01, and the biases were also initialized to 0. In
the training, the images were horizontally flipped and angularly rotated with a probability
of 0.5, where the angle varied in the range [−5◦ , 5◦ ].
Since the Siamese neural network outputs the similarity of a pair of input images
rather than the category to which the electronic components in the images belong, after
the training was completed, we used the nearest neighbor algorithm to classify the images.
Specifically, we first collected one sample from each category of electronic components and
classified these samples into a new dataset. Then, we compared the test images with the
images of each category in this dataset; the more similar the two images were, the higher
the prediction score output by the Siamese neural network, and vice versa. Finally, we
selected the category with the highest score as the classification result.
In our experiments, we performed each set of experiments three times, and in each
training we selected the model parameters with the best discriminative performance in
the last 10 epochs for classification tests, and finally the model parameters with the best
classification performance in these three results were selected.

4.2. Evaluation Metrics

In this study, the classification performance of the model was evaluated using an
accuracy rate defined as follows:
C
accuracy = (9)
T
where C denotes the number of correct classifications, and T denotes the total number of
classifications performed. Additionally, the area under the receiver operating characteristic
curve (AUC) was used to measure the discriminative performance of the model. The
horizontal coordinate of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve is the false
positive rate (FPR), and the vertical coordinate is the true positive rate (TPR), both of which
are defined as follows:
FP
FPR = (10)
FP + TN
TP
TPR = (11)
TP + FN
where false positive (FP) denotes that the model predicts a positive result for a sample, but
the true label is negative; true negative (TN) indicates that the prediction results and labels
of the sample are both negative; true positive (TP) means that the prediction results and
labels of the sample are both positive; and false negative (FN) refers to a sample with a
negative prediction result and a positive label.

4.3. Experimental Results

To verify the effectiveness of the method proposed in this study, the classification
accuracy was tested when using VGG-16, VGG-16-F based on feature fusion, VGG-16 with
channel correlation loss, and VGG-16 with both methods included as feature extraction
subnets of the Siamese network for different sample numbers. Table 1 summarizes the
results of the ablation experiments.
Table 1 shows that the accuracy of different models presents an increasing trend as
the number of training samples increases. This indicates that the larger the number of
samples, the better the neural network distinguishes between different classes of objects.
The classification accuracy of the VGG-16-F model was improved by 0.15, 0.11, 0.10, and
0.15, respectively, compared to the VGG-16 model for training sample sizes of 2, 5, 10,
and 15, indicating that propagating the fine-grained information contained in the lower
convolutional layers to the higher convolutional layers helps to improve the discriminative
performance of the model. The accuracy of the VGG-16 model using channel correlation loss
compared to the baseline improved by 0.07, 0.06, 0.08, and 0.13, respectively, suggesting that
Sensors 2022, 22, 6478 8 of 11

channel correlation loss helps the neural network learn the relationship between different
channels in the feature map, thus improving the ability to discriminate different classes of
objects. Furthermore, the accuracy of VGG-16-F combined with channel correlation loss
improved by 0.16, 0.15, 0.24, and 0.23, respectively, compared with the original VGG-16,
which indicates that the combination of the two methods can improve the classification
accuracy of the model.

Table 1. Results of ablation experiments.

Model N1 =2 N=5 N = 10 N = 15
VGG-16 0.31 0.50 0.67 0.71
VGG-16-F 0.46 0.61 0.77 0.86
VGG-16&Lc 0.38 0.56 0.75 0.84
VGG-16-F&Lc 0.47 0.65 0.91 0.94
1 The number of training samples for each type of electronic component.

Figure 5 presents the confusion matrix of the VGG-16 model and the improved model
under the condition of 15 training samples, whose values on the diagonal indicate the
probability of correct classification. As shown in Figure 5a, the original model can accurately
classify electronic components with significantly different appearances. However, it is
prone to the misclassification of electronic components with similar appearances. As shown
in Figure 5b, the values on the diagonal are above 0.75, indicating that the model proposed
in this study can classify each electronic component more accurately. It is a significant
improvement relative to the baseline, further demonstrating the effectiveness of the method
proposed in this study.

(a) (b)

Figure 5. Confusion matrix of testing results. (a) VGG-16. (b) VGG-16-F&Lc .

Moreover, experiments with AlexNet [30], ResNet-34, ResNet-50 [31], and GoogleNet [32]
were also performed as feature extraction subnetworks in the Siamese network; the experi-
mental results are shown in Table 2.
The ResNet-50 accuracy was lower than that of ResNet-34 because the former has more
parameters than the latter and is prone to overfitting. Given the same number of training
samples, the accuracy of GoogLeNet was higher than that of the other three networks
because GooLeNet uses a stacked inception block. It extracts features from images at
Sensors 2022, 22, 6478 9 of 11

different scales and reduces model complexity, but its accuracy is still lower than that of
the proposed method.

Table 2. Comparison of experimental results with other networks.

Model N1 =2 N=5 N = 10 N = 15
AlexNet 0.15 0.34 0.49 0.55
ResNet-34 0.31 0.39 0.44 0.47
ResNet-50 0.18 0.29 0.31 0.36
GoogLeNet 0.37 0.52 0.58 0.78
1 The number of training samples for each type of electronic component.

Figure 6 shows the ROC curves of the different models for different numbers of
training samples to evaluate the discriminative performance of the method proposed in
this study for a pair of images. The figure shows that the AUC of the proposed method is
higher than that of the other models for different numbers of training samples, indicating
that its discriminative performance is better than that of the other models.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 6. ROC curves of different models. (a) Number of training samples: 2. (b) Number of training
samples: 5. (c) Number of training samples: 10. (d) Number of training samples: 15.
Sensors 2022, 22, 6478 10 of 11

Therefore, combining the improved VGG-16 model with channel correlation loss
improved the model’s classification accuracy while outperforming other outstanding classi-
fication networks.

5. Conclusions
Electronic component classification in electronic waste facilitates better recycling.
Current deep learning-based classification algorithms require many training samples to
obtain high performance and do not provide a fine-grained classification level. This study
proposed a Siamese network-based classification algorithm for electronic component classi-
fication with high accuracy under small sample constraints to address these issues. First, the
low-level feature map of the VGG-16 model was extracted. A continuous downsampling
operation was performed to improve the discriminative performance of the Siamese net-
work by fusing the features with the high-level feature map. Second, a channel correlation
loss function that allows the model to learn correlation information about different channels
in the feature map was proposed to boost the model’s discriminative ability further. For
inference, the nearest neighbor algorithm was used for electronic component classification.
The experimental results show that the proposed method can achieve 0.94 accuracy with
15 training samples. This is higher than that of other CNNs used as the feature extraction
part of the Siamese network, such as AlexNet, ResNet-34, ResNet-50, and GoogLeNet.
The results confirm the effectiveness of the proposed method. Although this approach
achieves better results, the method still suffers from classification errors for electronic com-
ponents with similar appearances. In future work, we will apply the attention mechanism
to our model to improve the robustness for similar electronic components and investigate
the effect of the model on electronic component recognition under different backgrounds
and image qualities. Furthermore, our method will be further applied to more types of
electronic components and other small sample classification tasks.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Y.C.; methodology, Y.C.; software, Y.C.; validation, Y.C.,
A.W. and L.W.; investigation, Y.C. and A.W.; data curation, A.W. and L.W.; writing—original draft
preparation, Y.C.; writing—review and editing, Y.C., A.W. and L.W. All authors have read and agreed
to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Kiddee, P.; Naidu, R.; Wong, M.H. Electronic waste management approaches: An overview. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 1237–1250.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Tanskanen, P. Management and recycling of electronic waste. Acta Mater. 2013, 61, 1001–1011. [CrossRef]
3. Rawat, W.; Wang, Z. Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Image Classification: A Comprehensive Review. Neural Comput.
2017, 29, 1–98. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Alsaffar, A.; Tao, H.; Talab, M. Review of deep convolution neural network in image classification. In Proceedings of the 2017
International Conference on Radar, Antenna, Microwave, Electronics, and Telecommunications (ICRAMET), Jakarta, Indonesia,
23–24 October 2017; pp. 26–31. [CrossRef]
5. Li, L.; Zhang, S.; Wang, B. Apple Leaf Disease Identification with a Small and Imbalanced Dataset Based on Lightweight
Convolutional Networks. Sensors 2022, 22, 173. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Masci, J.; Meier, U.; Ciresan, D.; Schmidhuber, J.; Fricout, G. Steel defect classification with Max-Pooling Convolutional
Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the 2012 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), Brisbane, Australia,
10–15 June 2012; pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
7. Zhang, Y.D.; Satapathy, S.C.; Guttery, D.S.; Górriz, J.M.; Wang, S.H. Improved Breast Cancer Classification Through Combining
Graph Convolutional Network and Convolutional Neural Network. Inf. Process. Manag. 2021, 58, 102439. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2022, 22, 6478 11 of 11

8. Cai, D.; Chen, K.; Qian, Y.; Kämäräinen, J.K. Convolutional low-resolution fine-grained classification. Pattern Recognit. Lett. 2019,
119, 166–171. [CrossRef]
9. Wu, X.; Hong, D.; Chanussot, J. Convolutional Neural Networks for Multimodal Remote Sensing Data Classification. IEEE Trans.
Geosci. Remote. Sens. 2022, 60, 5517010. [CrossRef]
10. Mou, L.; Lu, X.; Li, X.; Zhu, X.X. Nonlocal Graph Convolutional Networks for Hyperspectral Image Classification. IEEE Trans.
Geosci. Remote. Sens. 2020, 58, 8246–8257. [CrossRef]
11. Lefkaditis, D.; Tsirigotis, G. Morphological feature selection and neural classification. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. Rev. 2009, 2, 151–156.
[CrossRef]
12. Atik, I. Classification of Electronic Components Based on Convolutional Neural Network Architecture. Energies 2022, 15, 2347.
[CrossRef]
13. Salvador, R.; Bandala, A.; Javel, I.; Bedruz, R.A.; Dadios, E.; Vicerra, R. DeepTronic: An Electronic Device Classification Model
using Deep Convolutional Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 10th International Conference on Humanoid,
Nanotechnology, Information Technology, Communication and Control, Environment and Management (HNICEM), Baguio City,
Philippines, 29 November–2 December 2018; pp. 1–5. [CrossRef]
14. Wang, Y.J.; Chen, Y.T.; Jiang, Y.S.F.; Horng, M.F.; Shieh, C.S.; Wang, H.Y.; Ho, J.H.; Cheng, Y.M. An Artificial Neural Network to
Support Package Classification for SMT Components. In Proceedings of the 2018 3rd International Conference on Computer and
Communication Systems (ICCCS), Nagoya, Japan, 27–30 April 2018; pp. 130–134. [CrossRef]
15. Hu, X.; Xu, J.; Wu, J. A Novel Electronic Component Classification Algorithm Based on Hierarchical Convolution Neural Network.
In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Changchun, China, 21–23 August 2020; Volume
474, p. 052081. [CrossRef]
16. Ilina, O.; Ziyadinov, V.; Klenov, N.; Tereshonok, M. A Survey on Symmetrical Neural Network Architectures and Applications.
Symmetry 2022, 14, 1391. [CrossRef]
17. Bromley, J.; Bentz, J.W.; Bottou, L.; Guyon, I.; LeCun, Y.; Moore, C.; Säckinger, E.; Shah, R. Signature verification using a“Siamese”
time delay neural network. Int. J. Pattern Recognit. Artif. Intell. 1993, 7, 669–688. [CrossRef]
18. Chopra, S.; Hadsell, R.; Lecun, Y. Learning a similarity metric discriminatively, with application to face verification. In Proceedings
of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, San Diego, CA, USA, 20–25 June 2005; IEEE Press: Piscataway, NJ,
USA, 2005, pp. 539–546.
19. Hoffer, E.; Ailon, N. Deep Metric Learning Using Triplet Network. In Proceedings of the Similarity-Based Pattern Recognition,
Copenhagen, Denmark, 12–14 October 2015; Feragen, A., Pelillo, M., Loog, M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham,
Switzerland, 2015; pp. 84–92.
20. Dong, X.; Shen, J.; Wu, D.; Guo, K.; Jin, X.; Porikli, F. Quadruplet Network With One-Shot Learning for Fast Visual Object
Tracking. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 2019, 28, 3516–3527. [CrossRef]
21. Liu, X.; Zhou, Y.; Zhao, J.; Yao, R.; Liu, B.; Zheng, Y. Siamese Convolutional Neural Networks for Remote Sensing Scene
Classification. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 2019, 16, 1200–1204. [CrossRef]
22. Wang, B.; Wang, D. Plant Leaves Classification: A Few-Shot Learning Method Based on Siamese Network. IEEE Access 2019,
7, 151754–151763. [CrossRef]
23. Simonyan, K.; Zisserman, A. Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition. Comput. Sci. 2014.
24. Glorot, X.; Bordes, A.; Bengio, Y. Deep Sparse Rectifier Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International
Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA, 11–13 April 2011; Gordon, G., Dunson, D., Dudík,
M., Eds.; PMLR: Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA, 2011; Volume 15, pp. 315–323.
25. Srivastava, N.; Hinton, G.; Krizhevsky, A.; Sutskever, I.; Salakhutdinov, R. Dropout: A Simple Way to Prevent Neural Networks
from Overfitting. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2014, 15, 1929–1958.
26. Koch, G.; Zemel, R.; Salakhutdinov, R. Siamese Neural Networks for One-shot Image Recognition. In Proceedings of the ICML
Deep Learning Workshop, Lille, France, 6–11 July 2015.
27. Gatys, L.A.; Ecker, A.S.; Bethge, M. Image Style Transfer Using Convolutional Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the 2016
IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 27–30 June 2016; pp. 2414–2423.
[CrossRef]
28. Kingma, D.; Ba, J. Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization. Int. Conf. Learn. Represent. 2014.
29. He, K.; Zhang, X.; Ren, S.; Sun, J. Delving Deep into Rectifiers: Surpassing Human-Level Performance on ImageNet Classification.
In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), Santiago, Chile, 7–13 December 2015.
30. Krizhevsky, A.; Sutskever, I.; Hinton, G.E. ImageNet Classification with Deep Convolutional Neural Networks. Commun. ACM
2017, 60, 84–90. [CrossRef]
31. He, K.; Zhang, X.; Ren, S.; Sun, J. Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Conference on
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 27–30 June 2016; pp. 770–778. [CrossRef]
32. Szegedy, C.; Liu, W.; Jia, Y.; Sermanet, P.; Reed, S.; Anguelov, D.; Erhan, D.; Vanhoucke, V.; Rabinovich, A. Going deeper with
convolutions. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Boston, MA,
USA, 7–12 June 2015; pp. 1–9. [CrossRef]