Author Affiliations
1College of Aeronautics and Astronautics Engineering, Air Force Engineering University, Xian, Shaanxi 710038, China2Unit 94582 of the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army, Shangqiu, Henan 476000, Chinashow less
Fig. 1. Flow of proposed algorithm
Fig. 2. Experimental data. (a) Original image; (b) objectives; (c) synthesis of data
Fig. 3. Detection effects of different algorithms at different thresholds. (a)--(c) SAM algorithm; (d) proposed algorithm
Fig. 4. Time complexity of proposed algorithm under different initial number of points
Fig. 5. Target growth process. (a) 1st layer; (b) 2nd layer; (c) 3rd layer; (d) 4th layer; (e) dentification result
Fig. 6. Root node optimization process. (a) Short chain growth result; (b) adjacent frequency
Fig. 7. Background growth process. (a) 1st layer; (b) 2nd layer; (c) 3rd layer; (d) 4th layer; (e) against result
Fig. 8. Position of missing and overlapping pixels and final recognition effect. (a) Comprehensive display effect; (b) missing pixels; (c) overlapping pixels; (d) determination effect
Fig. 9. Detection effects of different algorithms. (a) Original images; (b) truth ground; (c) CEM algorithm; (d) ACE algorithm; (e) WCM-OSP algorithm; (f) DERSG algorithm; (g) AG algorithm
Fig. 10. ROCs of different algorithms under different datasets. (a) Data 1; (b) data 2; (c) data 3; (d) data 4
Algorithm | Threshold | Pd /% | Pf /% |
---|
| C=0.0520 | 14.03 | 0 | SAM | C=0.0700 | 36.84 | 0.08 | | C=0.0784 | 45.33 | 2.05 | Proposed algorithm | C1=0.0520,C2=0.0700 | 45.33 | 0.08 |
|
Table 1. Detection probability and false alarm probability of different algorithms
Data | Parameter | CEM | ACE | WCM-OSP | AG | DESRG |
---|
1 | Pd /% | | | 90.00 | | | | Pf /% | 0.11 | 0.25 | 13.48 | 0.07 | 34.00 | 2 | Pd /% | | | 90.00 | | | | Pf /% | 0.83 | 1.10 | 57.32 | 0.76 | 83.77 | 3 | Pd /% | | | 90.00 | | | | Pf /% | 1.18 | 6.32 | 1.73 | 0.09 | 0.34 | 4 | Pd /% | | | 90.00 | | | | Pf /% | 0.26 | 0.28 | 4.56 | 0.20 | 15.34 |
|
Table 2. Detection probability and false alarm rate of different algorithms when detection probability is 90%
Parameter | CEM | ACE | WCM-OSP | AG | DESRG |
---|
Average time /s | 6.48 | 31.37 | 6.67 | 43.59 | 32.28 |
|
Table 3. Average running time of different algorithms when detection probability is 90%