PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 7, 2026Recycling1 citationsOpen Access

Comparative Analysis of Techniques for Texture Feature Extraction for Supervised Classification of Wood and Textile Waste

View Full Paper
WFWilfrido Campos FranciscoJTJonathan Villanueva TaviraJVJonathan Jesús Carranza Vega

Key Points

  • This research aims to improve the classification of wood and textile waste using advanced texture feature extraction techniques.
  • Analyzed 4396 images of wood and textile waste categories.
  • Extracted features using Local Binary Pattern (LBP), Gray-Level Co-occurrence Matrix (GLCM), Histogram of Oriented Gradients (HOG), and others.
  • Trained Machine Learning algorithms including Multilayer Perceptron (MLP), Random Forest (RF), and Support Vector Machine (SVM).
  • Multilayer Perceptron achieved the highest accuracy of 96.70%.
  • Random Forest followed with an accuracy of 95.45%.
  • Support Vector Machine reported an accuracy of 95.22%.

Abstract

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is a common problem in all cities worldwide; it is expected to increase to 3400 billion tons by 2050. In Mexico, an average of 108,146 tons of MSW are generated daily. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a computer tool that allows the development of systems that facilitate the recycling process. However, most AI programs focus on classifying paper, plastic, glass and metal; therefore, wood and textile waste have received little attention. Using texture techniques such as Local Binary Pattern (LBP), Gray-Level Co-occurrence Matrix (GLCM), Histogram of Oriented Gradients (HOG), Canny/Sobel edge detection, Fractal Dimension (FD), feature values were extracted and integrated from 4396 images belonging to wood and textile categories. Using the Random Forest Importance method, the most significant features were selected to train three Machine Learning (ML) algorithms. Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) achieved the best performance in accuracy with 96.70%, followed by Random Forest (RF) at 95.45% and Support Vector Machine (SVM) with 95.22%. The implementation of these comparisons will serve as a basis for the development of new technological tools with low computational cost that carry out a proper waste separation.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Francisco et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69fc2ca48b49bacb8b3480e3https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling11050086
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Post-Fracture Production Prediction with Production Segmentation and Well Logging: Harnessing Pipelines and Hyperparameter Tuning with GridSearchCV2024 · 8 citations
  2. 2Describing Textures in the Wild2014 · 2,369 citations
  3. 3Autonomous Waste Classification Using Multi-Agent Systems and Blockchain: A Low-Cost Intelligent Approach2025 · 9 citations
  4. 4An Approximated Box Height for Differential-Box-Counting Method to Estimate Fractal Dimensions of Gray-Scale Images2017 · 40 citations
  5. 5Introducing spectral moment features in analyzing the SpecTex hyperspectral texture database2017 · 17 citations