Source localization in an ocean waveguide using supervised machine learning
Haiqiang Niu,1, a) Emma Reeves,1 and Peter Gerstoft1
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093-0238,
USA

arXiv:1701.08431v4 [physics.ao-ph] 6 Sep 2017

(Dated: 8 September 2017)

Source localization in ocean acoustics is posed as a machine learning problem in which data-driven methods
learn source ranges directly from observed acoustic data. The pressure received by a vertical linear array
is preprocessed by constructing a normalized sample covariance matrix (SCM) and used as the input for
three machine learning methods: feed-forward neural networks (FNN), support vector machines (SVM) and
random forests (RF). The range estimation problem is solved both as a classification problem and as a
regression problem by these three machine learning algorithms. The results of range estimation for the Noise09
experiment are compared for FNN, SVM, RF and conventional matched-field processing and demonstrate the
potential of machine learning for underwater source localization.
PACS numbers: 43.60.Np, 43.60.Jn, 43.30.Wi
I.

INTRODUCTION

Machine learning is a promising method for locating
ocean sources because of its ability to learn features from
data, without requiring sound propagation modeling. It
can be used for unknown environments.
Acoustic source localization in ocean waveguides is often solved with matched-field processing (MFP).1−13 Despite the success of MFP, it is limited in some practical
applications due to its sensitivity to the mismatch between model-generated replica fields and measurements.
MFP gives reasonable predictions only if the ocean environment can be accurately modeled. Unfortunately,
this is difficult because the realistic ocean environment is
complicated and unstable.
An alternative approach to the source localization
problem is to find features directly from data.14−17 Interest in machine learning techniques has been revived
thanks to increased computational resources as well as
their ability to learn nonlinear relationships. A notable
recent example in ocean acoustics is the application of
nonlinear regression to source localization.18 Other machine learning methods have obtained remarkable results when applied to areas such as speech recognition,19
image processing,20 natural language processing,21 and
seismology.22−25 Most underwater acoustics research in
machine learning is based on 1990s neural networks. Previous research has applied neutral networks to determine the source location in a homogeneous medium,26
simulated range and depth discrimination using artificial neural networks in matched-field processing,27 estimated ocean-sediment properties using radial basis functions in regression and neural networks,28,29 applied artificial neural networks to estimation of geoacoustic model
parameters,30,31 classification of seafloor32 and whale

a) Also

at State Key Laboratory of Acoustics, Institute of Acoustics,
Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, People’s Republic of
China. Electronic mail: hniu@ucsd.edu

sounds.33
This paper explores the use of current machine learning
methods for source range localization. The feed-forward
neural network (FNN), support vector machine (SVM)
and random forest (RF) methods are investigated. There
are several main differences between our work and previous studies of source localization and inversion:18,26−33
1. Acoustic observations are used to train the machine learning models instead of using model-generated
fields.26,27,29−31
2. For input data, normalized sample covariance matrices, including amplitude and phase information, are
used. Other alternatives include the complex pressure,18
phase difference,26 eigenvalues,27 amplitude of the pressure field,29 transmission loss,30,31 angular dependence of
backscatter,32 or features extracted from spectrograms.33
This preprocessing procedure is known as feature extraction in machine learning.
3. Under machine learning framework, source localization can be solved as a classification or a regression problem. This work focuses on classification in addition to the
regression approach used in previous studies.18,26,28−31
4.
Well-developed machine learning libraries are
used. Presently, there are numerous efficient open
source machine learning libraries available, including
TensorFlow,34 Scikit-learn,35 Theano,36 Caffe,37 and
Torch,38 all of which solve typical machine learning tasks
with comparable efficiency. Here, TensorFlow is used to
implement FNN because of its simple architecture and
wide user base. Scikit-learn is used to implement SVM
and RF as they are not included in the current TensorFlow version. Compared to older neural network implementations, Tensorflow includes improved optimization algorithms39 with better convergence, more robust
model with dropout40 technique and high computational
efficiency.
The paper is organized as follows. The input data preprocessing and source range mapping are discussed in
Secs. II A and II B. The theoretical basis of FNN, SVM
and RF is given in Secs. II C–II E. Simulations and experimental results in Secs. III and IV demonstrate the

2
performance of FNN, SVM and RF. In Sec. V, the effect of varying the model parameters is discussed. The
conclusion is given in Sec. VI.

II.

matrix in C(f ) are used as input to save memory and
improve calculation speed. These entries are vectorized
to form the real-valued input x of size L × (L + 1) to the
FNN, SVM and RF.

LOCALIZATION BASED ON MACHINE LEARNING
B.

The dynamics of the ocean and its boundary cause
a stochastic relationship between the received pressure
phase and amplitude at the array and the source range.
After preprocessing we assume a deterministic relationship between ship range and sample covariance matrix.
The pressure–range relationship is in general unknown
but may be discovered using machine learning methods.
The received pressure is preprocessed and used as the
input of the machine learning models (Sec. II A). The
desired output may be either discrete (classification) or
continuous (regression) corresponding to the estimated
source range (Sec. II B). The theory of FNN, SVM, and
RF are described in Secs. II C–II E.

A.

Input data preprocessing

To make the processing independent of the complex
source spectra, the received array pressure is transformed
to a normalized sample covariance matrix. The complex
pressure at frequency f obtained by taking the DFT of
the input pressure data at L sensors is denoted by p(f ) =
[p1 (f ), · · · , pL (f )]T . The sound pressure is modeled as
p(f ) = S(f )g(f, r) + ǫ,

(1)

where ǫ is the noise, S(f ) is the source term, and g is
the Green’s function. To reduce the effect of the source
amplitude |S(f )|, this complex pressure is normalized according to
p̃(f ) = s

p(f )
L
P

|pl (f )|

=
2

p(f )
.
kp(f )k2

(2)

l=1

The normalized sample covariance matrices (SCMs)
are averaged over Ns snapshots to form the conjugate
symmetric matrix
Ns
1 X
C(f ) =
p̃s (f )p̃H
s (f ),
Ns s=1

Source range mapping

In the classification problem, a set of source ranges
is discretized into K bins, r1 , ..., rK , of equal width ∆r.
Each input vector, xn , n = 1, .., N , is labeled by tn , where
tn ∈ rk , k = 1, ..., K; this label represents the true source
range class and is the target output for the model. SVM
and RF use this classification scheme to train and predict
the source range for each sample.
For the FNN, the range class tn is mapped to a 1 × K
binary vector, tn , such that:

1
if |tn − rk | ≤ ∆r
2 ,
tnk =
(4)
0
otherwise,
tn = tn,1 , ..., tn,K therefore represents the expected output probability of the neural network, i.e. the probability
that the source is at range rk for input xn . These target vectors are used to train the FNN. The FNN output
predictions are given as a softmax distribution with maximum at the predicted range (see Sec. II C).
In the regression problem, the target output rn ∈
[0, ∞) is a continuous range variable for all three models.

C.

Feed-forward neural networks

The feed-forward neural network (FNN), also known
as multi-layer perceptron, is constructed using a feedforward directed acyclic architecture, see Fig. 1(a). The
outputs are formed through a series of functional transformations of the weighted inputs. In the FNN, the outputs are deterministic functions of the inputs.41
Here, a three layer model (input layer L1 , hidden layer
L2 and output layer L3 ) is used to construct the FNN.
The input layer L1 is comprised of D input variables
x = [x1 , · · · , xD ]T . The jth linear combination of the
input variables is given by
aj =

(1)

(1)

wji xi + wj0 ,

j = 1, · · · , M,

(5)

i=1

(3)

where H denotes conjugate transpose operator and p̃s
represents the sound pressure over the sth snapshot. The
H
product p̃s (f )p̃H
s (f ) contains an S(f )S(f ) term, which
for large SNR is dominant and thus reduces the effect of
the source phase. Preprocessing the data according to
Eqs. (2) and (3) ensures that the Green’s function is used
for localization. Only the real and imaginary parts of the
complex valued entries of diagonal and upper triangular

D
X

where M is the number of neurons in L2 and the superscript indicates that the corresponding parameters are in
(1)
the first layer of the network. The parameters wji and
(1)

wj0 are called the weights and biases and their linear
combinations aj are called activations. In L2 , the activations are transformed using an activation function f (·),
zj = f (aj ).

(6)

3
-.

(a)

tribution (see Sec. II B), and yk (xn , w) is the estimated
probability distribution, for the input xn (see Sec. II A).
During training, the Kullback–Leibler (KL) divergence
X
DKL (tn ||y(xn , w)) =
tnk [ln tnk − ln ynk ] ,
(10)

+,

!$
%&#'"(

!#

-&

'*(
%)&

!"

represents the dissimilarity between ynk = yk (xn , w) and
tnk , where tn = [tn1 , ..., tnk ], k = 1, ..., K. Minimizing
the KL divergence DKL is equivalent to minimizing the
cross entropy function En
X
En (tn , y(xn , w)) = −
tnk ln ynk ,
(11)

+"

-"

Hidden
layer L2

Input
layer L1

k

+)

Output
layer L3

(b)

y

k

1

0.5

since the desired output tn is constant (independent of
w).
For N observation vectors, the averaged cross entropy
and resulting weights and biases are
E(w) = −

0
-10

-5

0

5

10

#
N K
1 XX
tnk ln ynk .
ŵ = argmin −
N n=1
w
"

FIG. 1. (a) Diagram of a feed-forward neural network and
(b) Sigmoid function.

The logistic sigmoid was chosen as the intermediate activation function for this study, see Fig. 1(b):
1
.
1 + e−a

ak =

(2)

(2)

wkj zj + wk0 ,

E(w) =

k = 1, · · · , K

(8)

j=1

(2)

(13)

k=1

For the regression problem, there is only one neuron in
the output layer representing the continuous range variable. Instead of using Eq. (12), a sum-of-squares error
function41 is minimized

(7)

Similarly, for output layer L3 , the K output unit activations are expressed as linear combinations of zj
M
X

(12)

k=1

x

f (a) = σ(a) =

N K
1 XX
tnk ln ynk ,
N n=1

N
1X
2
|y(xn , w) − rn | ,
2 n=1

(14)

where rn is the true source range at sample n.
Several optimization methods are provided in the TensorFlow software. In this paper, Adam39 (Adaptive Moment estimation) is used.

(2)

where wkj and wk0 represent weights and biases for the
second layer.
In the output layer, the softmax function is used as the
activation function. The softmax is a common choice for
multi-class classification problems.41 Here, it constrains
the output class, yk (x, w), to be the probability that the
source is at range rk :41
exp(ak (x, w))
yk (x, w) = PK
,
j=1 exp(aj (x, w))

k = 1, · · · , K

(9)

where w is the set of all weight
P and bias parameters and
yk satisfies 0 ≤ yk ≤ 1 and k yk = 1.
Before applying the FNN to unlabeled data, the
weights and biases w are determined by training the
model on labeled data. Recall that in the FNN case,
tn is the binary target vector, or true probability dis-

D.

Support Vector Machine

Unlike neural networks, support vector machines
(SVM) are decision machines that do not provide a posterior probability.41 Instead, the data is divided into two
(or more) classes by defining a hyperplane that maximally separates the classes.
First, for simplicity, assume the input xn , n = 1, · · · , N
are linearly separable (see Fig. 2) and can be divided into
two classes, sn ∈ {1, −1}. The class of each input point
xn is determined by the form41
yn = wT xn + b,

(15)

where w and b are the unknown weights and bias. A
hyperplane satisfying wT x+b = 0 is used to separate the

4
ing the optimization problem:

5

Class: -1
Class: 1
Support vectors
Hyperplane
Margin boundary



0

argmin
w,b

subject to sn yn ≥ 1 − ξn ,





n = 1, · · · , N.

Often the relation between yn and xn is nonlinear.
Thus Eq. (15) becomes

-10
0

(20)

The parameter C > 0 controls the trade-off between the
slack variable penalty and the margin.



-5

N
X
1
||w||2 + C
ξn ,
2
n=1

5

yn = wT φ(xn ) + b,

10


FIG. 2. (Color online) A linear hyperplane learned by training
an SVM in two dimensions (D = 2).

(21)

where φ(xn ) denotes the feature-space transformation.
By substituting φ(xn ) for xn , Eqs. (16–20) are unchanged.
The constrained optimization problem can be rewritten in terms of the dual Lagrangian form:41

classes. If yn is above the hyperplane (yn > 0), estimated
class label ŝn = 1 , whereas if yn is below (yn < 0),
ŝn = −1. The perpendicular distance d of a point xn to
the hyperplane is the distance between the point xn and
its projection x0 on the hyperplane, satisfying
xn = x0 + d

w
,
||w||

(16)

wT x0 + b = 0,
where || · || is the l2 norm. From Eq. (16), the distance d
is obtained:
d(xn ) = sn

wT xn + b
,
||w||

(17)

L̃(a) =

N
X

n=1

an −

N
N
1XX
an am sn sm kφ (xn , xm ),
2 n=1 m=1

subject to 0 ≤ an ≤ C,
N
X

an sn = 0,

(22)

n = 1, · · · , N,

n=1

where an ≥ 0 are Lagrange multipliers and dual variables, and kφ (xn , xm ) = φ(xn )T φ(xm ) is the kernel function. In this study, we use the Gaussian radial basis function (RBF) kernel35
kφ (x, x′ ) = exp(−γ||x − x′ ||2 ),

(23)

where γ is a parameter that controls the kernel shape.
where sn is added in Eq. (17) to guarantee d > 0. The
margin dM is defined as the distance from the hyperplane
to the closest points xs on the margin boundary (support
vectors, see Fig. 2). The optimal w and b are solved by
maximizing the margin dM :
argmax dM ,

Support vector regression (SVR) is similar to SVM,
but it minimizes the ǫ–sensitive error function
(
0,
if |yn − rn | < ǫ,
Eǫ (yn − rn ) =
(24)
|yn − rn | − ǫ, otherwise,

w,b

sn (wT xn + b)
≥ dM ,
subject to
||w||

(18)
n = 1, · · · , N.

where rn is the true source range at sample n and ǫ defines a region on either side of the hyperplane. In SVR,
the support vectors are points outside the ǫ region.

The Eq. (18) is equivalent to this optimization problem:41
argmin
w,b
T

1
||w||2 ,
2

subject to sn (w xn + b) ≥ 1,

(19)
n = 1, · · · , N.

If the training set is linearly non-separable (class overlapping), slack variables41 ξn ≥ 0 are introduced to allow
some of the training points to be miclassified, correspond-

Because the SVM and SVR models are a two-class
models, multi-class SVM with K classes is created by
training K(K − 1)/2 models on all possible pairs of
classes. The points that are assigned to the same class
most frequently are considered to comprise a single class,
and so on until all points are assigned a class from 1
to K. This approach is known at the “ one-versus-one”
scheme,41 although slight modifications have been introduced to reduced computational complexity.42

5
where nleft and nright are the numbers of points in the
regions xleft and xright . H(·) is an impurity function
chosen based on the problem.
For the classification problem, the Gini index35 is chosen as the impurity function


1
1 X
I(tn , ℓm ) 1 −
I(tn , ℓm ) , (27)
H(xm ) =
nm x ∈x
nm
n

m

where nm is the number of points in region xm and ℓm
represents the assigned label for each region, corresponding to the most common class in the region:35
X
I(tn , rk ).
(28)
ℓm = argmax
rk

xn ∈xm

In Eq. (28), rk , k = 1, ..., K are the source range classes
and tn is the label of point xn in region m, and
(
1 if tn = rk ,
I(tn , rk ) =
(29)
0 otherwise.

FIG. 3.
(Color online) Decision tree classifier and corresponding rectangular regions shown for two–dimensional data
with K = 2 classes (D = 2, M = 3) and 1000 training points.

E.

Random forests

The random forest (RF)43 classifier is a generalization
of the decision tree model, which greedily segments the
input data into a predefined number of regions. The
simple decision tree model is made robust by randomly
training subsets of the input data and averaging over
multiple models in RF.
Consider a decision tree (see Fig. 3) trained on all the
input data. Each input sample, xn , n = 1, ..., N , represents a point in D dimensions. The input data can be
partitioned into two regions by defining a cutoff along the
ith dimension, where i is the same for all input samples
xn , n = 1, ..., N :
xn ∈ xleft
xn ∈ xright

if xni > c,
if xni ≤ c.

(25)

c is the cutoff value, and xleft and xright are the left and
right regions, respectively. The cost function, G, that is
minimized in the decision tree at each branch is35
c∗ = argmin G(c),
c

G(c) =

nright
nleft
H(xleft ) +
H(xright ),
N
N

The remaining regions are partitioned iteratively until
regions x1 , ..., xM are defined. In this paper, the number
of regions, M , is determined by the minimum number of
points allowed in a region. A diagram of the decision tree
classifier is shown in Fig. 3. The samples are partitioned
into M = 3 regions with the cutoff values 1.9 and 4.6.
For RF regression, there are two differences from classification: the estimated class for each region is defined as
the mean of the true class for all points in the region, and
the mean squared error is used as the impurity function
1 X
rn ,
nm x ∈x
n
m
X
(ℓm − rn )2 ,
H(xm ) =
ℓm =

xn ∈xm

where rn is source range at sample n.
As the decision tree model may overfit the data, statistical bootstrap and bagging are used to create a more
robust model, a random forest.44 In a given draw, the
input data, xi , i = 1, · · · , Q, is selected uniformly at random from the full training set, where Q ≤ N . B such
draws are conducted with replacement and a new decision tree is fitted to each subset of data. Each point, xn ,
is assigned to its most frequent class among all draws:
fˆbag (xn ) = argmax
tn

(26)

(30)

B
X

I(fˆtree,b (xn ), tn ),

b=1

where fˆtree,b (xi ) is the class of xi for the bth tree.

(31)

6
F.

Performance metric

To quantify the prediction performance of the range
estimation methods, the mean absolute percentage error
(MAPE) over N samples is defined as

   
    

(32)

where Rpi and Rgi are the predicted range and the
ground truth range, respectively. MAPE is preferred as
an error measure because it accounts for the magnitude
of error in faulty range estimates as well as the frequency
of correct estimates. MAPE is known to be an asymmetric error measure45 but is adequate for the small range
of outputs considered.

G.

III.

SIMULATIONS

In this section, the performance of machine learning
on simulated data is discussed. For brevity, only the
FNN classifier is examined here, although the conclusions
apply to SVM and RF. Further discussion of SVM and
RF performance is included in Secs. IV and V.

A.

Halfspace

Source localization algorithm

The localization problem solved by machine learning
is implemented as follows:
1. Data preprocessing. The recorded pressure signals
are Fourier transformed and Ns snapshots form the SCM
from which the input x is formed.
2. Division of preprocessed data into training and test
data sets. For the training data, the labels are prepared
based on different machine learning algorithms.
3. Training the machine learning models. X =
[x1 · · · xN ] are used as the training input and the corresponding labels as the desired output.
4. Prediction on unlabeled data. The model parameters trained in step 3 are used to predict the source range
for test data. The resulting output is mapped back to
range, and the prediction error is reported by the mean
absolute percentage error.

Environmental model and source-receiver configuration

Acoustic data is simulated using KRAKEN46 with
environmental parameters simulating the Noise09
experiment47 , see Fig. 4(a). The source frequency is 300
Hz. The source depth is 5 m in a 152 m waveguide, with
a 24 m sediment layer (sound speed 1572–1593 m/s,
density 1.76 g/cm3 , attenuation coefficient 2.0 dB/λ)
and a fluid halfspace bottom (sound speed 5200 m/s,
density 1.8 g/cm3 , and attenuation coefficient 2.0 dB/λ).

         
          

Layer

(b)

0

Depth (m)

100 X Rpi − Rgi
,
N i=1
Rgi



   

   

N

EMAPE =

     

(a)

50

    
         

100

150
1490

1495

1500

1505

1510

Sound speed (m/s)
FIG. 4. (Color online) (a) Waveguide parameters and sourcereceiver configuration. (b) Sound speed profile of water column.

The sound speed profile of water column is shown in
Fig. 4(b). The vertical array consists of 16 receivers
spanning 128–143 m depth with inter-sensor spacing 1
m.
A source traveling away from the receiver at 2 m/s
is simulated by varying the range from 0.1 to 2.86 km
at 2 m intervals. Realizations with different SNRs are
generated by adding appropriate complex Gaussian noise
to the simulated received complex pressure signals.
Since the source moves in range and the source level
is assumed constant, SNR is defined at the most distant
range bin
SNR = 10 log10

PL

|p̂l |2 /L
(dB),
σ2

l=1

(33)

where p̂l is sound pressure signal received by the lth sensor at the longest source-receiver distance and σ 2 represents the noise variance.

B.

Input preprocessing and learning parameters

The SCM for a 16–element vertical array is formed at
each range point by averaging over Ns = 10 successive
snapshots (9 snapshots overlapped) according to Eq. (3).

7

Range (km)

Range (km)

predictions

3.0

true ranges

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

2.0
1.0
0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0

0

40

80

Time [index]

120 0

40

80

Time [index]

120

FIG. 5. (Color online) Range predictions by FNN on test
data set with SNR of (a) −10, (b) −5, (c) 0, and (d) 5 dB.
The time index increment is 10 s.

The number of neurons in the input layer is therefore
D = 16 × (16 + 1) = 272. The range sample interval
is 2 m, with 1380 total range samples (1 s duration per
snapshot). Thus, a total of N = 1380 input matrices
constitute the sample set spanning the whole range 0.1–
2.86 km.
For each SNR, two realizations of noisy measurements
are generated. One realization of size 1380 × 272 is used
for the training set. For the test set, the range sample
interval is changed to 20 m, and a realization of size 138
× 272 is used as input.
In the test set, K = 138 output neurons represent
ranges from 0.1–2.86 km incremented by 20 m. The number of neurons in the hidden layer is M = 128. To prevent
overfitting, the ”keep dropout” technique,40 with probability 0.5, is used. The initial learning rate for the Adam
optimizer39 is 0.01 and the maximum number of iterations is 1000.

C.

Results

The prediction performance is examined for four SNRs
(−10, −5, 0, 5 dB). Figure 5 compares range predictions
by FNN and the true ranges on test data. For the four
SNRs tested, the MAPE for the FNN predictions is 20.6,
6.5, 0.2 and 0.0%, respectively.
As described in Sec. II, the output ynk of FNN represents the probability distribution over a discrete set
of possible ranges. To demonstrate the evolution of the
probability distribution as the FNN is trained, ynk versus training steps is plotted in Fig. 6 for the signal with
SNR 5 dB at range 1.5 km. After 300 training steps,
the FNN output probability distribution resembles the
target output.

FIG. 6. (Color online) Output probability for range 0.1–2.86
km (the true range is 1.5 km) after training steps (1, 100, 200,
300). The top line represents the target output.

In Fig. 7, the convergence of the FNN algorithm is
investigated by plotting the cross entropy Eq. (12) versus the optimization step on training and test data. It
shows that the FNN converges after about 300 steps at
all SNRs. For low SNRs (< 0 dB), the FNN classifier
generates poor predictions on test data while performing
well on training data, which indicates overfitting.
Increasing the training set size can reduce overfitting
but additional data may be not available due to experimental or computational constraints. For higher SNRs
(e.g., 0 and 5 dB), both test and training errors converge to low cross entropy, indicating good performance.
Therefore, best performance of machine learning methods is expected for high SNR.

IV.

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

Shipping noise data radiated by R/V New Horizon during the Noise09 experiment are used to demonstrate the
performance of the FNN, SVM and RF localization. The
experiment geometry is shown in Fig. 8, with bottommoored vertical linear arrays (VLAs) indicated by triangles and the three ship tracks used for range estimation.
The hydrophone sampling rate was 25 kHz.
The data from VLA2, consisting of 16 hydrophones
at 1 m spacing, are used for range estimation. The frequency spectra of shipping noise recorded on the top hydrophone during the three periods are shown in Fig. 9.
The striations indicate that the source was moving. The
SNR decreases with increasing source-receiver distance.
Data from period 01:43–02:05 on January 31, 2009 are
used as the training set and 01:05–01:24 on January 31
and 13:41–13:51 on February 4 are used as the test sets

8

(a)

(b)

Time (s)

6

test data set

4
2
0
6

(c)

(d)
Time (s)

4
2
0

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
1000

dB

(a)

0

200

400

Optimization step

0

200

-40
-50
-60

(b)

dB

FIG. 7. (Color online) Cross entropy Eq. (11) versus optimization steps on training (solid) and test (dashed) data with
SNR of (a) −10, (b) −5, (c) 0, and (d) 5 dB.

-20

800

-30

600

-40

400

-50
-60

400

Optimization step

-20
-30

200

Time (s)

Cross entropy

Cross entropy

training data set

600
500
400
300
200
100

(c)

dB

-20
-30
-40
-50
-60

200

400

600

800

1000

Frequency (Hz)
32.62

(a)

FIG. 9.
(Color online) Spectra of shipping noise during
periods (a) 01/31/2009, 01:43–02:05, (b) 01/31/2009, 01:05–
01:24, and (c) 02/04/2009, 13:41–13:51.

32.61
32.6
VLA 2

Latitude (deg)

32.59
32.62

propeller and VLA2 as the ground truth range Rg :

(b)

32.61
32.6
VLA 2
32.59
32.62

for training data and Test-Data-2,
for Test-Data-1,
(34)
where RGP S represents the range between the GPS antenna and VLA2. According to the R/V New Horizon
handbook, Ld = 24.5 m. In the following, the ranges
have been corrected by Eq. (34).
Rg =

(c)

32.61



RGPS − Ld
RGPS + Ld

32.6
VLA 2
32.59
-117.43 -117.425 -117.42 -117.415 -117.41
Longitude (deg)

FIG. 8.
(Color online) Ship tracks for Noise09 experiment during the periods (a) 01/31/2009, 01:43–02:05 (training data, ship speed 2 m/s), (b) 01/31/2009, 01:05–01:24
(Test-Data-1, ship speed −2 m/s), and (c) 02/04/2009, 13:41–
13:51 (Test-Data-2, ship speed 4 m/s).

(Test-Data-1 and Test-Data-2).
The GPS antenna on the New Horizon is separated
from the noise–generating propeller by a distance Ld . To
account for this difference we use the range between the

A.

Input preprocessing and learning parameters

For the training set and both test sets, the 16×16 SCM
at each range and frequency, averaged over 10 successive
1-s snapshots, is used as input. There are 1380 samples in
the training data set and 120 samples in each of the test
data sets (samples are drawn every 10 s for Test-Data-1
and 5 s for Test-Data-2). The source-receiver range 0.1–3
km is divided into K = 138 discrete range points.
As in the simulations in Sec. III B, the keep probability
for training dropout of the FNN is 0.5, the initial learning
rate is 0.01 and the maximum iteration step is 1000. The
number of neurons in the hidden layer is chosen as M =
128 for 1 frequency and M = 1024 for 66 frequencies (
see Sec. IV B).
For the SVM classifier, Gaussian radial basis function kernel is used. The parameters γ (Eq. (23)) and C

9

C.

Range (km)
Range (km)
Range (km)

Because the shipping noise has a wide frequency band
as seen from Fig. 9, the performance of the machine learning with the single and multi-frequency inputs is investigated. The FNN classifier is again used an example to
illustrate the benefit of using multiple frequencies.
Input SCMs are formed at 550, 950, and 300–950 Hz
with 10 Hz increments (66 frequencies). For the multifrequency input, the SCMs are formed by concatenating
multiple single-frequency SCM input vectors. For example, the dimension of a single frequency input sample is
272, whereas the multi-frequency input has a dimension
272 × Nf for Nf frequencies. The FNN is trained separately for each case and the source-receiver range is then
predicted at the selected frequencies.
The prediction results on the two test data sets are
shown in Figs. 10(a–f) along with Rg . For single frequency inputs, the minimum error is 12% (Fig. 10(d)) at
550 Hz and the largest error is 18% at 950 Hz (Fig. 10(e)),
both on Test-Data-2. For multi-frequency inputs, the
prediction error is 8% on Test-Data-1 and 6% on TestData-2, indicating a performance improvement by using
multiple frequencies. In general, the FNN predictions are
better at close ranges due to higher SNR, as expected
from the simulation results. However, the FNN with
multi-frequency inputs performs well regardless of source
range.

GPS ranges

(a)

(d)

(b)

(e)

(c)

(f)

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Time [index]

FIG. 10.
(Color online) Range predictions on Test-Data1 (a, b, c) and Test-Data-2 (d, e, f) by FNN. (a)(d) 550 Hz,
(b)(e) 950 Hz, (c)(f) 300–950 Hz with 10 Hz increment, i.e. 66
frequencies. The time index increment is 10 s for Test-Data-1,
and 5 s for Test-Data-2.

Source localization as a classification problem

Source localization is first solved as a classification
problem. Only the best MAPE obtained by FNN
(Sec. II C), SVM (Sec. II D) and RF (Sec. II E) is shown
here (Fig. 11). These results are summarized in Table I.
The lowest MAPE is achieved by the SVM, with 2%
on both data sets. RF also reaches 2% MAPE for TestData-2 and 3% for Test-Data-1. FNN has 3% MAPE for
both test sets. The performance of these three machine
learning algorithms is comparable when solving range estimation as a classification problem.
The performance of these machine learning algorithms
with various parameters (e.g. number of classes, number
of snapshots and model hyper-parameters) is examined
in Sec. V.

3.0
2.0
1.0
0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0

Time [index]

Range (km)

SCM inputs

Range (km)

B.

predictions

Range (km)

(Eq. (20)) were tested over [10−3 10−1 ] and [10 103 ],
respectively. Values of γ = 10−2 and C = 10 are found
to be optimal.
For the RF method, the number of trees bagged is 500,
with a minimum of 50 samples required for each leaf.
The performance of all test cases for the FNN, SVM,
RF and conventional MFP is summarized in Tables I and
II.

3.0
2.0
1.0
0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0

predictions

GPS ranges

(a)

(d)

(b)

(e)

(c)

(f)

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Time [index]

Time [index]

FIG. 11. (Color online) Source localization as a classification
problem. Range predictions on Test-Data-1 (a, b, c) and TestData-2 (d, e, f) by FNN, SVM and RF for 300–950 Hz with
10 Hz increment, i.e. 66 frequencies. (a)(d) FNN classifier,
(b)(e) SVM classifier, (c)(f) RF classifier.

10

FIG. 13. (Color online) Source localization as a regression
problem. Range predictions on Test-Data-1 (a, b) and TestData-2 (c, d) by SVM and RF for 300–950 Hz with 10 Hz
increment, i.e. 66 frequencies. (a)(c) SVM for regression,
(b)(d) RF for regression.
FIG. 12. (Color online) Source localization as a regression
problem. Range predictions on Test-Data-1 (a, b, c) and TestData-2 (d, e, f) by FNN for 300–950 Hz with 10 Hz increment,
i.e. 66 frequencies. (a)(d) 1 hidden layer, (b)(e) 2 hidden
layers, (c)(f) 3 hidden layers. Each hidden layer consists of
512 neurons.

D.

Source localization as a regression problem

Source localization can be solved as a regression problem. For this problem, the output represents the continuous range and the input remains the vectorized covariance matrix Eq. (3). In this case, the highly nonlinear
relationship between the covariance matrix elements and
the range, caused primarily by modal interference, is difficult to fit a nonlinear model. In the training process,
the input data remain the same, the labels are direct
GPS ranges, and the weights and biases are trained using least-squares objective functions.
The range predictions by FNN with different number
of hidden layers along with the GPS ranges are given in
Fig. 12. Increasing the number of hidden layers increases
the nonlinearity of the model and allows a larger number
of parameters to be learned, thus significantly reducing
the error for FNN regression. Figure 13 shows the results
of SVM (Fig. 13(a)(c)) and RF regressors (Fig. 13(b)(d))
on two data sets. For these methods, since additional
layers cannot be added to increase the nonlinearity, the
performance lags FNN. The best MAPE values for each
regressor are shown in Table I. Compared with classifiers,
the FNN, SVM and RF degrade significantly for solving
regression tasks.

E.

Conventional matched-field processing

The Bartlett MFP1 is applied to Noise09 data for comparison. Two kinds of replica fields are used in the
Bartlett processor. The first is generated by KRAKEN
using the Noise09 environment in Fig. 4, with the corresponding ambiguity surfaces and maximum peaks shown
in Fig. 14. We use the measured data (i.e. training data,
01/31/2009, 01:43–02:05) as the second group of replica
fields as proposed in Ref. 14. The results are shown in
Fig. 15. For each case, both single frequency (550 Hz)
and broadband (300–950 Hz) are considered.
From Figs. 14 and 15, the Bartlett MFP fails to determine source positions using a single frequency, while the
FNN still generates a number of reasonable predictions
(see Fig. 10(a)). Despite improved performance using
broadband MFP, there are some errors due to sidelobes.
The MAPE of MFP predictions is shown in Table I. The
minimum MAPE of Bartlett MFP is 19% on Test-Data-1
and 30% on Test-Data-2, which is much larger than the
machine learning classifiers.

V.

DISCUSSIONS

A.

Range resolution

The number of classes, corresponding to the resolution
of range steps, was varied to determine its effect on range
estimation results. Previously (see Sec. IV) K = 138
classes were used, corresponding to a range resolution of
20 m. The MAPE for predictions with different numbers
of output classes by FNN, SVM and RF classifiers is given

11
TABLE I. Best MAPE rate of FNN, SVM, RF and MFP
predictions.

Model
FNN classifier
SVM classifier
RF classifier
FNN regressor
SVM regressor
RF regressor
MFP
MFP with
measured replica
FIG. 14. (Color online) Localization using Bartlett matchedfield processing based on synthetic replica fields on Test-Data1. (a) ambiguity surface and (b) maximum peaks for 550
Hz, (c) ambiguity surface and (d) maximum peaks for 300–
950 Hz with 10 Hz increment. Circles and solid lines denote
predictions and GPS ranges respectively.

MAPE
Test-Data-1 (%) Test-Data-2 (%)
3
3
2
2
3
2
10
5
42
59
55
48
55
36
19

30

range estimation methods are tested using 1, 5, and 20
snapshots and the corresponding MAPE is shown in Table II. All of the three models degrade with 1 snapshot
due to low SNR and become robust with more snapshots.

C.

Number of hidden neurons and layers for FNN

The MAPE of FNN with different numbers of hidden
neurons and layers is given in Table II. Increasing the
number of hidden neurons increases the number of parameters to fit in the FNN model. As a result, more of
the variance in the data is captured. FNN has the minimum error when the number of hidden neurons is chosen
as 128 or 2048 for Test-Data-1 (7%) and 512 for TestData-2 (4%). In the case of Test-Data-1, 256, 512 and
1024 have a similar result (8%, 8%, 8%). As shown in Table II, the FNN with two hidden layers did not improve
the prediction performance for classification.

FIG. 15. (Color online) Localization using Bartlett matchedfield processing (training data as replica fields) on Test-Data1. (a) ambiguity surface and (b) maximum peaks for 550
Hz, (c) ambiguity surface and (d) maximum peaks for 300–
950 Hz with 10 Hz increment. Circles and solid lines denote
predictions and GPS ranges respectively.

D.

Kernel and regularization parameters for SVM

in Table II with 10 snapshots averaged for each sample.
These three classifiers perform well for all tested range
resolutions.

When using a Gaussian radial basis function kernel,
the parameters γ in Eq. (23) and the regularization parameter C in Eq. (20) determine the best separation of
the data by SVM. The MAPE versus these two parameters on two data sets is shown in Fig. 16. As seen from
the result, there exists an optimal interval for these two
parameters (i.e. 10 < C < 103 and 10−3 < γ < 10−1 ).
The SVM fails when γ and C are out of this interval, but
is robust when γ and C are within the appropriate range.

B.

E.

Snapshots

The number of snapshots averaged to create the SCMs
may also affect the performance. Increasing the number
of snapshots makes the input more robust to noise, but
could introduce mismatch if the source is moving or the
environment is evolving across the averaging period. The

Number of trees and minimum samples per leaf for RF

The number of decision trees and the minimum samples per leaf35 are the most sensitive parameters for the
RF. Figure 17 shows the MAPE versus these two parameters. The RF parameters have a smaller range of
possible values than SVM, but the RF classifier will not

12
(a)

10 2

(b)

90

C

70
10 0

50
30

10 −2

10
10 −2

10 0

γ

10 2

10 −2

10 0

γ

10 2

No. of trees

FIG. 16. (Color online) MAPE of the SVM classifier on (a)
Test-Data-1 and (b) Test-Data-2. γ is the kernel parameter
and C is the regularization parameter. There are 138 output
classes and 10 snapshots averaged for each sample.
1000
500
200
100
50
20
10

18
10
(a)
1 5 10 20 50 100

(b)

2

1 5 10 20 50 100

Minimum samples per leaf Minimum samples per leaf
FIG. 17. (Color online) MAPE of the RF classifier versus
the number of trees and the minimum samples per leaf on
(a) Test-Data-1 and (b) Test-Data-2. There are 138 output
classes and 10 snapshots averaged for each sample.

fail for any of these choices. The RF classifier has the
best performance for more than 500 trees and 20 to 50
minimum samples per leaf.

F.

CPU time

The three machine learning models are efficient in CPU
time (on a 2015–iMac). For the FNN with 1024 hidden
neurons and 1000 training steps, it took 140 s for training
and predicting the results. The SVM took 110 s, and the
RF (500 trees and 50 minimum samples per leaf) was the
fastest at 52 s.

G.

learning algorithms, e.g. deep learning, may be necessary
for more complicated experimental geometries or ocean
environments.

VI.

CONCLUSION

This paper presents an approach for source localization
in ocean waveguides within a machine learning framework. The localization is posed as a supervised learning
problem and solved by the feed-forward neural networks,
support vector machines and random forests separately.
Taking advantage of the modern machine learning library
such as TensorFlow and Scikit-learn, the machine learning models are trained efficiently. Normalized sample
covariance matrices are fed as input to the models. Simulations show that FNN achieves a good prediction performance for signals with SNR above 0 dB even with
deficient training samples. Noise09 experimental data
further demonstrates the validity of the machine learning algorithms.
Our results show that classification methods perform
better than regression and MFP methods. The three
classification methods tested (FNN, SVM, RF) all performed well with the best MAPE 2–3%. The SVM performs well if the model parameters are chosen appropriately, otherwise it degrades significantly. By contrast,
the FNN and RF are more robust on the choices of parameters.
The experimental results show that multi-frequency input generates more accurate predictions than single frequency (based on FNN). In the current study, the training and test data were from the same ship. In a realistic application, data from multiple ships of opportunity
can be used as training data by taking advantage of the
Automatic Identification System (AIS), a GPS system required on all cargo carriers. The tracks were quite similar
and it would be interesting to compare the performance
of the three methods as tracks deviate.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by the Office of Naval Research under Grant No. N00014–1110439 and the China
Scholarship Council.

Multiple sources and deep learning

In our study, only one source is considered. The simultaneous multiple source localization problem is more
challenging, especially for sources close to each other.
Solving this problem with FNN is a multiple binary classification problem and will require additional training
data.
Although the FNN with one hidden layer works well
for the data sets in this paper, more complicated machine

1 F.

B. Jensen, W. A. Kuperman, M. B. Porter, and H. Schmidt,
Computational Ocean Acoustics, 2nd ed. (Springer Science &
Business Media, New York, 2011), Chap. 10.
2 H. P. Bucker, “Use of calculated sound fields and matched field
detection to locate sound source in shallow water,” J. Acoust.
Soc. Am. 59, 368–373, (1976).
3 H. Schmidt, A. B. Baggeroer, W. A. Kuperman, and E.
K. Scheer, “Environmentally tolerant beamforming for highresolution matched field processing: Deterministic mismatch,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 88, 1851–1862, (1990).

13
TABLE II. Parameter sensitivity of FNN, SVM and RF classifiers.

4 M.

No. of hidden
layers
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2

No. of hidden
neurons
1024
1024
1024
1024
1024
1024
1024
1024
1024
1024
64
128
256
512
2048
128
256
512

γ

C

10−2

10

No. of
trees

No. of samples
per leaf

500

50

Part I: FNN classifier
No. of
No. of
classes
snapshots
1380
10
690
10
276
10
138
10
56
10
28
10
14
10
138
1
138
5
138
20
138
10
138
10
138
10
138
10
138
10
138
10
138
10
138
10
Part II: SVM classifier
No. of
No. of
classes
snapshots
1380
10
690
10
276
10
138
10
56
10
28
10
138
1
138
5
138
20
Part III: RF classifier
No. of
No. of
classes
snapshots
1380
10
690
10
276
10
138
10
56
10
28
10
138
1
138
5
138
20

D. Collins and W. A. Kuperman, “Focalization: Environmental focusing and source localization,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
90, 1410–1422, (1991).
5 E. K. Westwood, “Broadband matched-field source localization,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 91, 2777–2789, (1992).
6 A. B. Baggeroer, W. A. Kuperman, and P. N. Mikhalevsky, “An
overview of matched field methods in ocean acoustics,” IEEE J.
Ocean. Eng. 18, 401–424, (1993).
7 D. F. Gingras and P. Gerstoft, “Inversion for geometric and geoacoustic parameters in shallow water: Experimental results,” J.

MAPE
Test-Data-1 (%) Test-Data-2 (%)
7
5
3
6
6
8
8
6
7
4
10
4
16
7
10
5
6
3
8
3
9
9
7
7
8
6
8
4
7
5
9
8
9
9
6
8
MAPE
Test-Data-1 (%) Test-Data-2 (%)
2
3
2
3
4
3
2
2
3
3
5
3
17
5
2
3
3
2
MAPE
Test-Data-1 (%) Test-Data-2 (%)
4
10
3
4
3
3
3
2
9
5
13
9
20
15
6
5
3
2

Acoust. Soc. Am. 97, 3589–3598, (1995).
H. Michalopoulou and M. B. Porter, “Matched-field processing
for broad-band source localization,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 21,
384–392, (1996).
9 C. F. Mecklenbraüker and P. Gerstoft, “Objective functions for
ocean acoustic inversion derived by likelihood methods,” J. Comput. Acoust. 8, 259–270, (2000).
10 C. Debever and W. A. Kuperman, “Robust matched-field processing using a coherent broadband white noise constraint processor,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 122, 1979–1986, (2007).
8 Z.

14
11 S.

E. Dosso and M. J. Wilmut, “Bayesian multiple source localization in an uncertain environment,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 129,
3577–3589, (2011).
12 S. E. Dosso and M. J. Wilmut, “Maximum-likelihood and other
processors for incoherent and coherent matched-field localization,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 132, 2273–2285, (2012).
13 S. E. Dosso and M. J. Wilmut, “Bayesian tracking of multiple
acoustic sources in an uncertain ocean environment,” J. Acoust.
Soc. Am. 133, EL274–EL280, (2013).
14 L. T. Fialkowski, M. D. Collins, W. A. Kuperman, J. S. Perkins,
L. J. Kelly, A. Larsson, J. A. Fawcett, and L. H. Hall, “Matchedfield processing using measured replica fields,” J. Acoust. Soc.
Am. 107, 739–746, (2000).
15 C. M. A. Verlinden, J. Sarkar, W. S. Hodgkiss, W. A. Kuperman, and K. G. Sabra, “Passive acoustic source localization using
sources of opportunity,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 138, EL54–EL59,
(2015).
16 Z. Lei, K. Yang and Y. Ma, “Passive localization in the deep
ocean based on cross-correlation function matching,” J. Acoust.
Soc. Am. 139, EL196–EL201, (2016).
17 H. C. Song and Chomgun Cho, “Array invariant-based source
localization in shallow water using a sparse vertical array,” J.
Acoust. Soc. Am. 141, 183–188, (2017).
18 R. Lefort, G. Real, and A. Drémeau, “Direct regressions for
underwater acoustic source localization in fluctuating oceans,”
Appl. Acoust. 116, 303–310, (2017).
19 G. Hinton, L. Deng, D. Yu, G. E. Dahl, A. Mohamed, N.
Jaitly, A. Senior, V. Vanhoucke, P. Nguyen, T. N. Sainath, and
B. Kingsbury, “Deep neural networks for acoustic modeling in
speech recognition: The shared views of four research groups,”
IEEE Signal Proc. Mag. 29, 82–97, (2012).
20 A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. E. Hinton, “Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks,” Adv. Neural
Inf. Process. Syst., 1097–1105, (2012).
21 R. Collobert, J. Weston, L. Bottou, M. Karlen, K. Kavukcuoglu,
and P. Kuksa, “Natural language processing (almost) from
scratch,” J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12, 2493–2537, (2011).
22 M. L. Sharma and M. K. Arora, “Prediction of seismicity cycles in
the himalayas using artificial neural networks,” Acta Geophysica
Polonica. 53, 299–309, (2005).
23 S. R. Garcı́a, M. P. Romo, and J. M. Mayoral, “Estimation of
peak ground accelerations for Mexican subduction zone earthquakes using neural networks,” Geofis. Int. 46, 51–63, (2006).
24 A. Köhler, M. Ohrnberger, and F. Scherbaum, “Unsupervised
pattern recognition in continuous seismic wavefield records using
Self-Organizing Maps,” Geophys. J. Int. 182, 1619–1630, (2010).
25 N. Riahi and P. Gerstoft, “Using graph clustering to locate
sources within a dense sensor array,” Signal Processing 132, 110–
120, (2017).
26 B. Z. Steinberg, M. J. Beran, S. H. Chin, and J. H. Howard, “A
neural network approach to source localization,” J. Acoust. Soc.
Am. 90, 2081–2090, (1991).
27 J. M. Ozard, P. Zakarauskas, and P. Ko, “An artificial neural
network for range and depth discrimination in matched field processing,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 90, 2658–2663, (1991).
28 A. Caiti and T. Parisini, “Mapping ocean sediments by RBF
networks,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 19, 577–582, (1994).
29 A. Caiti and S. Jesus, “Acoustic estimation of seafloor parameters: A radial basis functions approach,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
100, 1473–1481, (1996).
30 Y. Stephan, X. Demoulin and O. Sarzeaud, “Neural direct approaches for geoacoustic inversion,” J. Comput. Acoust. 6, 151–
166, (1998).
31 J. Benson, N.R. Chapman and A. Antoniou, “Geoacoustic model
inversion using artificial neural networks,” Inverse Problems. 16,
1627–1639, (2000).
32 Z. H. Michalopoulou, D. Alexandrou, and C. Moustier, “Application of neural and statistical classifiers to the problem of seafloor
characterization,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 20, 190–197, (1995).
33 A. M. Thode, K. H. Kim, S. B. Blackwell, C. R. Greene, C. S.

Nations, T. L. McDonald, and A. M. Macrander, “Automated detection and localization of bowhead whale sounds in the presence
of seismic airgun surveys,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 131, 3726–3747,
(2012).
34 M. Abadi, A. Agarwal, P. Barham, E. Brevdo, Z. Chen, C.Citro,
G. S. Corrado, A. Davis, J. Dean, M. Devin, S. Ghemawat, I.
Goodfellow, A. Harp, G.Irving, M. Isard, Y. Jia, R. Jozefowicz,
L. Kaiser, M. Kudlur, J. Levenberg, D. Mané, R. Monga, S.
Moore, D. Murray, C. Olah, M. Schuster, J. Shlens, B. Steiner,
I. Sutskever, K. Talwar, P. Tucker, V. Vanhoucke, V. Vasudevan,
F. Viégas, O. Vinyals, P. Warden, M. Wattenberg, M. Wicke, Y.
Yu, and X. Zheng, “TensorFlow: Large-scale machine learning
on heterogeneous distributed systems,” Software available from
tensorflow.org, (2015).
35 F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion,
O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V. Dubourg, J.
Vanderplas, A. Passos, D. Cournapeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot,
and É. Duchesnay, “Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python,”
J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12, 2825-2830, (2011).
36 J. Bergstra, O. Breuleux, F. Bastien, P. Lamblin, R. Pascanu, G.
Desjardins, J. Turian, D. Warde-Farley, and Y. Bengio, “Theano:
a CPU and GPU math compiler in Python,” Proc. 9th Python
in Science Conf., 1–7, (2010).
37 Y. Jia, E. Shelhamer, J. Donahue, S. Karayev, J. Long, R. Girshick, S. Guadarrama, and T. Darrell, “Caffe: Convolutional architecture for fast feature embedding,” In Proceedings of 22nd
ACM international conference on Multimedia, 675–678, (2014).
38 R. Collobert, S. Bengio, and J. Mariéthoz, “Torch: a modular
machine learning software library,” No. EPFL-REPORT-82802,
Idiap, (2002).
39 D. Kingma and B. Jimmy, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014).
40 N. Srivastava, G.E. Hinton, A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and R.
Salakhutdinov, “Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting,” J. Mach. Learn. Res. 15, 1929–1958,
(2014).
41 C. M. Bishop, Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning
(Springer 2006), Chaps. 4, 5, and 7.
42 R. Fan, P. Chen, and C. Lin, “Working Set Selection Using Second Order Information for Training Support Vector Machines,”
J. Mach. Learn Res. 6, 1889–1918, (2005).
43 L. Breiman, “Random forests,” Mach. Learn. 45, 5–32, (2001).
44 L. Breiman, “Bagging Predictors,” Mach. Learn. 24, 123–140,
(1996).
45 P. Goodwin and R. Lawton, “On the asymmetry of the symmetric MAPE,” Int. J. Forecasting 15, 405–408, (1999).
46 M. B. Porter,
The KRAKEN Normal Mode Program,
http://oalib.hlsresearch.com/Modes/AcousticsToolbox/manualtml/
kraken.html (Last viewed 11/1/2009).
47 S. H. Byun, C. M. A. Verlinden and K. G. Sabra, “Blind deconvolution of shipping sources in an ocean waveguide,” J. Acoust.
Soc. Am. 141, 797–807, (2017).

15
Fig. 1. (a) Diagram of a feed-forward neural network and (b) Sigmoid function.
Fig. 2. (Color online) A linear hyperplane learned
by training an SVM in two dimensions (D = 2).
Fig. 3. (Color online) Decision tree classifier and
corresponding rectangular regions shown for two–
dimensional data with K = 2 classes (D = 2, M =
3) and 1000 training points.
Fig. 4. (Color online) (a) Waveguide parameters
and source-receiver configuration. (b) Sound speed
profile of water column.
Fig. 5. (Color online) Range predictions by FNN
on test data set with SNR of (a) −10, (b) −5, (c)
0, and (d) 5 dB.
Fig. 6. (Color online) Output probability for range
0.1–2.86 km (the true range is 1.5 km) after training
steps (1, 100, 200, 300). The top line represents the
target output.
Fig. 7. (Color online) Cross entropy Eq. (11) versus optimization steps on training (solid) and test
(dashed) data with SNR of (a) −10, (b) −5, (c) 0,
and (d) 5 dB.

Fig. 11. (Color online) Source localization as a
classification problem. Range predictions on TestData-1 (a, b, c) and Test-Data-2 (d, e, f) by FNN,
SVM and RF for 300–950 Hz with 10 Hz increment, i.e. 66 frequencies. (a)(d) FNN classifier,
(b)(e) SVM classifier, (c)(f) RF classifier.
Fig. 12. (Color online) Source localization as a regression problem. Range predictions on Test-Data1 (a, b, c) and Test-Data-2 (d, e, f) by FNN for
300–950 Hz with 10 Hz increment, i.e. 66 frequencies. (a)(d) 1 hidden layer, (b)(e) 2 hidden layers,
(c)(f) 3 hidden layers. Each hidden layer consists
of 512 neurons.
Fig. 13. (Color online) Source localization as a regression problem. Range predictions on Test-Data1 (a, b) and Test-Data-2 (c, d) by SVM and RF
for 300–950 Hz with 10 Hz increment, i.e. 66 frequencies. (a)(c) SVM for regression, (b)(d) RF for
regression.
Fig. 14. (Color online) Localization using Bartlett
matched-field processing based on synthetic replica
fields. (a) ambiguity surface and (b) maximum
peaks for 550 Hz, (c) ambiguity surface and (d)
maximum peaks for 300–950 Hz with 10 Hz increment. Circles and solid lines denote predictions and
GPS ranges respectively.

Fig. 8. (Color online) Ship tracks for Noise09
experiment during the periods (a) 01/31/2009,
01:43–02:05 (training data, ship speed 2 m/s), (b)
01/31/2009, 01:05–01:24 (Test-Data-1, ship speed
−2 m/s), and (c) 02/04/2009, 13:41–13:51 (TestData-2, ship speed 4 m/s).

Fig. 15. (Color online) Localization using Bartlett
matched-field processing (training data as replica
fields). (a) ambiguity surface and (b) maximum
peaks for 550 Hz, (c) ambiguity surface and (d)
maximum peaks for 300–950 Hz with 10 Hz increment. Circles and solid lines denote predictions and
GPS ranges respectively.

Fig. 9. (Color online) Spectra of shipping noise
during periods (a) 01/31/2009, 01:43–02:05, (b)
01/31/2009, 01:05–01:24, and (c) 02/04/2009,
13:41–13:51.

Fig. 16. (Color online) MAPE of the SVM classifier on (a) Test-Data-1 and (b) Test-Data-2. γ is
the kernel parameter and C is the regularization
parameter. There are 138 output classes and 10
snapshots averaged for each sample.

Fig. 10. (Color online) Range predictions on TestData-1 (a, b, c) and Test-Data-2 (d, e, f) by FNN.
(a)(d) 550 Hz, (b)(e) 950 Hz, (c)(f) 300–950 Hz
with 10 Hz increment, i.e. 66 frequencies. The
time index increment is 10 s for Test-Data-1, and
5 s for Test-Data-2.

Fig. 17. (Color online) MAPE of the RF classifier
versus the number of trees and the minimum samples per leaf on (a) Test-Data-1 and (b) Test-Data2. There are 138 output classes and 10 snapshots
averaged for each sample.

