2021 International Conference on Control, Automation and Information Sciences (ICCAIS) 2021
DOI: 10.1109/iccais52680.2021.9624571
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Enhanced local sparsity coefficient-based sea-surface floating target detection

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…12 with the false alarm rates change from 0.001 to 0.1. In the several detectors, the LDOF-based detector > REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MANUSCRIPT ID NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < [7] (c) Detection results of modified phase-feature-based detector [9] (d) Detection results of TF-feature-based detector [8] (e) Detection results of LOF-based detector [15] (f) Detection results of isolation-tree-based detector [15] (g) Detection results of KNN-based detector [14] (h) Detection results of proposed ABOD-based detector [21] relies on the distance of the feature samples, and the LOF-based detector [15] and the ELSC-based detector [22] rely on the feature sample density in the high-dimensional feature space. Under four polarizations, it is evident that the detection performance of the proposed ABOD-based detector is always optimal, and the performance improvement is more pronounced at lower false alarm rates, making it more suitable for practical applications for radar target detection at low false alarm rates.…”
Section: Experimental Results On the Recognized Databasesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…12 with the false alarm rates change from 0.001 to 0.1. In the several detectors, the LDOF-based detector > REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MANUSCRIPT ID NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < [7] (c) Detection results of modified phase-feature-based detector [9] (d) Detection results of TF-feature-based detector [8] (e) Detection results of LOF-based detector [15] (f) Detection results of isolation-tree-based detector [15] (g) Detection results of KNN-based detector [14] (h) Detection results of proposed ABOD-based detector [21] relies on the distance of the feature samples, and the LOF-based detector [15] and the ELSC-based detector [22] rely on the feature sample density in the high-dimensional feature space. Under four polarizations, it is evident that the detection performance of the proposed ABOD-based detector is always optimal, and the performance improvement is more pronounced at lower false alarm rates, making it more suitable for practical applications for radar target detection at low false alarm rates.…”
Section: Experimental Results On the Recognized Databasesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the final experiment, advantages of using the angles as the measure of the anomaly detectors are validated. The detection performance of the density-based detectors (LOF-based detector [15] and ELSC-based detector [22]), the distance-based detector (LDOF-based detector [21]) and the angle-based detector (proposed ABOD-based detector) are compared. For the sake of fairness, the several detectors use the same eleven features presented in the section II.…”
Section: Experimental Results On the Recognized Databasesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations