Fig. 1. (a) Infrared image of the dark target and the local 3D gray image of the target; (b) Infrared image of the bright target and the local 3D gray image of the target
Fig. 2. (a) Working mode of sliding window and the division of multi-layer area; (b) A number of subwindows within a sliding window; (c) Schematic diagram of interpolation multiplication in four directions of the algorithm in this paper
Fig. 3. (a) Small size target detection; (b) Large size target detection
Fig. 4. Detection result of multi-scale bright and dark target by DDAM
Fig. 5. Flow chart of small object detection
Fig. 6. Detection results of nine algorithms for three groups of real infrared sequences
Fig. 7. TTSM construction diagram
Fig. 8. Nine algorithms for TTSM of three sets of real infrared sequences
Fig. 9. ROC curves of nine algorithms under three different scenes
Fig. 10. Detection results of DDAM in nine consecutive frames of complex scenes
Sequences | Image resolution | Image number | Target size | Target brightness | Scenes description | 1 | 400×560 | 50 | 2×3-4×6 | Dark and bright | Complex background interference | 2 | 420×560 | 90 | 3×4-6×9 | Bright | Strong noise interference | 3 | 512×640 | 115 | 6×9-9×9 | Bright | Strong edge interference |
|
Table 1. Three groups of test data parameters
Evaluation indicators | Sequences | Top-hat | LCM | MPCM | RLCM | TTLCM | ADMD | DNGM | DLCM | DDAM | $ \overline{\mathrm{S}\mathrm{C}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{G}} $ | 1 | 10.564 | NaN | 45.296 | NaN | NaN | 83.915 | 305.688 NInf=1 | 369.42 NInf=5 | 342.158 NInf=6 | 2 | 5.352 | 2.225 | 8.016 | 2.453 | 7.915 | 8.991 | 159.462 NInf=38 | 169.824 NInf=40 | 286.574NInf=38 | 3 | 1.939 | 0.530 | 11.758 | 0.908 | 13.278 | 14.809 | 138.146 NInf=26 | 63.864 NInf=35 | 62.391 NInf=37 | $ \overline{\mathrm{B}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{F}} $ | 1 | 1.206 | 0.767 NInf=3 | 4.427 | 0.721 NInf=1 | 4.394 NInf=4 | 13.601 | 46.914 NInf=1 | 55.782 NInf=5 | 54.69 NInf=6 | 2 | 1.390 | 0.358 | 3.232 | 0.437 | 2.250 | 4.806 | 73.152 NInf=38 | 80.489 NInf=40 | 135.201NInf=38 | 3 | 1.384 | 0.445 | 6.244 | 4.055 | 6.154 | 10.188 | 107.484 NInf=26 | 73.264 NInf=35 | 83.793 NInf=37 | Time/s | 1 | 0.019 | 0.121 | 0.135 | 6.328 | 4.101 | 0.034 | 0.162 | 0.152 | 0.120 | 2 | 0.015 | 0.114 | 0.130 | 5.613 | 3.571 | 0.031 | 0.158 | 0.148 | 0.113 | 3 | 0.015 | 0.163 | 0.192 | 7.620 | 4.799 | 0.036 | 0.227 | 0.215 | 0.170 |
|
Table 2. \begin{document}$ \overline{\mathrm{S}\mathrm{C}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{G}} $\end{document}![]()
![]()
,
\begin{document}$ \overline{\mathrm{B}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{F}} $\end{document}![]()
![]()
and real time performance of nine algorithms in three groups of scenarios
Sequences | TPR | Top-hat | LCM | MPCM | RLCM | TTLCM | ADMD | DNGM | DLCM | DDAM | 1 | Pd-4 | 0.720 | NaN | 0.920 | NaN | NaN | 0.720 | 0.740 | 0.740 | 0.960 | Pd-3 | 0.760 | NaN | 0.960 | NaN | NaN | 0.740 | 0.780 | 0.780 | 0.960 | Pd-2 | 0.820 | 0.480 | 0.960 | 0.780 | 0.760 | 0.780 | 0.780 | 0.780 | 0.980 | 2 | Pd-4 | 0.900 | NaN | 0.811 | NaN | 0.844 | 0.728 | 0.944 | 0.967 | 0.900 | Pd-3 | 0.956 | 0.678 | 0.844 | 0.811 | 0.922 | 0.822 | 0.967 | 0.967 | 0.989 | Pd-2 | 0.978 | 0.864 | 0.966 | 0.956 | 0.989 | 0.978 | 0.978 | 0.973 | 0.991 | 3 | Pd-4 | 0.238 | 0.103 | 0.276 | NaN | 0.353 | 0.036 | 0.413 | 0.201 | 0.370 | Pd-3 | 0.370 | 0.181 | 0.785 | 0.388 | 0.974 | 0.931 | 0.982 | 0.982 | 0.982 | Pd-2 | 0.982 | 0.371 | 0.982 | 0.474 | 0.982 | 0.982 | 0.982 | 0.982 | 0.982 |
|
Table 3. Detection accuracy of nine algorithms in three groups of stypical cenarios
Algorithms | Top-hat | LCM | MPCM | RLCM | TTLCM | ADMD | DNGM | DLCM | DDAM | $ \overline{\mathrm{S}\mathrm{C}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{G}} $ | 6.251 | 6.106 | 20.976 | 2.473 | 9.112 | 37.572 | 205.098 | 205.036 | 230.499 | $ \overline{\mathrm{B}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{F}} $ | 1.471 | 0.527 | 4.977 | 2.738 | 4.279 | 10.138 | 76.398 | 69.895 | 93.388 | Time/s | 0.016 | 0.135 | 0.157 | 6.523 | 4.218 | 0.038 | 0.184 | 0.173 | 0.139 | TPR Pd-4 | 0.609 | 0.467 | 0.673 | 0.499 | 0.572 | 0.523 | 0.703 | 0.629 | 0.747 | TPR Pd-3 | 0.667 | 0.512 | 0.863 | 0.653 | 0.892 | 0.828 | 0.905 | 0.909 | 0.933 | TPR Pd-2 | 0.910 | 0.646 | 0.925 | 0.749 | 0.923 | 0.913 | 0.926 | 0.912 | 0.949 |
|
Table 4. Average performance comparison of several target detection algorithms on twelve scences