2012
DOI: 10.1109/jstars.2012.2188095
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Target Detection Under Misspecified Models in Hyperspectral Images

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As such, it has gained widespread attention in the fields of geology, the military, the mining industry, and medical imaging, among others [2,3,4]. Anomaly detection, which is one of the most popular branches in hyperspectral image processing, is capable of uncovering many masked targets of interest without a priori spectral knowledge, and as such, it generally conforms to practical conditions, and has gradually been considered very effective and useful in HSI [5,6,7,8].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As such, it has gained widespread attention in the fields of geology, the military, the mining industry, and medical imaging, among others [2,3,4]. Anomaly detection, which is one of the most popular branches in hyperspectral image processing, is capable of uncovering many masked targets of interest without a priori spectral knowledge, and as such, it generally conforms to practical conditions, and has gradually been considered very effective and useful in HSI [5,6,7,8].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It provides the ability to distinguish the differences of ground-object spectra, so it has a wide range of applications in target detection [1]. Based on the availability of the prior information, the target detection algorithms can be divided into unsupervised and supervised ones.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many target detection algorithms have been proposed and applied to HSI [1,2,3]. Spectral angle mapper (SAM) [4] may be the simplest one without any assumption on data distribution.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The best AUC (%) value of SRD-Pre is 98.61 while the value of SRD-Post is 84.18. Furthermore, when window-size (w out , w in ) is smaller (e.g.,(7,3)), the performance of SRD-Post is much worse.…”
mentioning
confidence: 97%