Robustness Analysis of a Convolutional Neural Network Approach to Source-Range Estimation in a Simulated Arctic Environment

This study presents a convolutional neural network (CNN) approach to underwater source-range estimation in an Arctic propagation environment and compares its performance to conventional matched field processing (MFP). The covariance matrices of simulated sources upon a vertical line array are used as input data and estimates through both classification and regression approaches are examined. The network architecture is designed to be intuitive and lightweight; regularization is implemented to prevent over-fitting. The training data consist of acoustic outputs from a near-surface monopole source placed at discrete range increments between 3-50 km away from the receiving array; the test data are generated by placing the source at random ranges within the training interval. Robustness of the CNN models to sound speed profile (SSP) variability is tested. Results show that the CNN approaches are more tolerant of SSP mismatch compared to MFP at the expense of worse range resolution when the SSP is modelled accurately. By examining the CNN models filter activations and intermediate layer outputs, we present insights into how they generate predictions and achieve their robustness.

[1]  Peter Gerstoft,et al.  Source localization in an ocean waveguide using supervised machine learning , 2017, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  W. Kuperman,et al.  Environmentally tolerant beamforming for high‐resolution matched field processing: Deterministic mismatch , 1990 .

[3]  J. Toole,et al.  Influences of the ocean surface mixed layer and thermohaline stratification on Arctic Sea ice in the central Canada Basin , 2010 .

[4]  John M. Ozard,et al.  An artificial neural network for range and depth discrimination in matched field processing , 1991 .

[5]  Scott Adams Carper Low frequency active sonar performance in the Arctic Beaufort Lens , 2017 .

[6]  Sharon Gannot,et al.  Machine learning in acoustics: a review , 2019, ArXiv.

[7]  Jimmy Ba,et al.  Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization , 2014, ICLR.

[8]  Arthur B. Baggeroer,et al.  An overview of matched field methods in ocean acoustics , 1993 .

[9]  H. Bucker Use of calculated sound fields and matched‐field detection to locate sound sources in shallow water , 1976 .

[10]  Peter Gerstoft,et al.  Deep-learning source localization using multi-frequency magnitude-only data. , 2019, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  Martín Abadi,et al.  TensorFlow: Large-Scale Machine Learning on Heterogeneous Distributed Systems , 2016, ArXiv.

[12]  Song Han,et al.  Learning both Weights and Connections for Efficient Neural Network , 2015, NIPS.

[13]  Yonghong Yan,et al.  Source localization using deep neural networks in a shallow water environment. , 2018, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  Peter Gerstoft,et al.  Ship localization in Santa Barbara Channel using machine learning classifiers. , 2017, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  Thomas Howe A modal analysis of acoustic propagation in the changing Arctic environment , 2015 .

[16]  Hua Peng,et al.  Underwater acoustic source localization using generalized regression neural network. , 2018, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  Mark J. Beran,et al.  A neural network approach to source localization , 1991 .

[18]  Kelly,et al.  Matched-field processing using measured replica fields , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.