2008
DOI: 10.1049/el:20081781
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Generalised-structure-tensor-based infrared small target detection

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 47 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In this study, to evaluate the effectiveness of the algorithm, the infrared images of the above six scenes are tested and compared with seven classical algorithms in the line, namely, the robust principal component analysis algorithm (RPCA), improved top-hat filtering algorithm (top-hat), improved various anisotropy filtering algorithm, generalized structure tensor algorithm (GST) [30] ,…”
Section: III Test Results and Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In this study, to evaluate the effectiveness of the algorithm, the infrared images of the above six scenes are tested and compared with seven classical algorithms in the line, namely, the robust principal component analysis algorithm (RPCA), improved top-hat filtering algorithm (top-hat), improved various anisotropy filtering algorithm, generalized structure tensor algorithm (GST) [30] ,…”
Section: III Test Results and Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, to evaluate the detection effect of the algorithm, three evaluation metrics are introduced in this paper, structural similarity (SSIM) [33] , background suppression factor (BSF), and SNR. SSIM mainly evaluates the magnitude of the similarity between the background image predicted by the algorithm and the original image, which is calculated as follows (2 (30) where  in and  out are the mean squared differences between the input image and the difference image, respectively. The SNR can be used to evaluate the contrast between the target and the noise energy obtained by the algorithm and thus verify the detection effect of the algorithm, which is calculated as follows: the SNR is still larger in different sequences compared with other algorithms, which proves that the algorithm proposed in this paper has a greater advantage in target detection.…”
Section: III Test Results and Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2) Baseline Methods: In order to highlight the detection performance of the proposed method, we compare it with other eight infrared dim small target detection methods, including two classical methods (MAXMED [5] and TOPHAT [19]) and six recently proposed methods (GST [9], IPIAPG [8], MSRLCM [15], MSAAGD [26], NRAM [44], and PSTNN [43]). The primary parameter settings of these methods are given in Table II.…”
Section: B Experimental Setup 1) Datasetmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We found many algorithms to detect the small target on the two data sets with low SCR, but some algorithms cannot play a role in these two data sets. Here, we choose eight effective algorithms for comparison: the algorithm based on local intensity and gradient properties (LIG) [49], the algorithm via non-convex rank approximation minimization joint l2 (NRAM) [50], the algorithm based on variance difference (Var_Diff) [51], the algorithm based on the multi-scale absolute average grey difference (AAGD) [51], the algorithm based on multi-scale Laplacian of Gaussian (LOG) [51], the algorithm based on the infrared patch-image model (IPI) [52], the algorithm based on density peaks searching and maximum-grey region growing (DPIR) [53], and the algorithm based on generalized-structure-tensor (GST) [54].…”
Section: Comparisonmentioning
confidence: 99%