• Laser & Optoelectronics Progress
  • Vol. 60, Issue 10, 1010002 (2023)
Haicheng Qu, Xinxin Wang*, and Jun Ouyang
Author Affiliations
  • College of Software, Liaoning Technical University, Huludao 125105, Liaoning, China
  • show less
    DOI: 10.3788/LOP213224 Cite this Article Set citation alerts
    Haicheng Qu, Xinxin Wang, Jun Ouyang. Infrared Small-Target Detection Based on Hybrid Domain Module and Hole Convolution[J]. Laser & Optoelectronics Progress, 2023, 60(10): 1010002 Copy Citation Text show less
    Detection scheme of proposed algorithm
    Fig. 1. Detection scheme of proposed algorithm
    Detection scheme of typical FCN
    Fig. 2. Detection scheme of typical FCN
    Detection scheme of MDvsFA_cGAN
    Fig. 3. Detection scheme of MDvsFA_cGAN
    Network structure of proposed algorithm
    Fig. 4. Network structure of proposed algorithm
    Overall flow of CBAM
    Fig. 5. Overall flow of CBAM
    Overall flow of CAM
    Fig. 6. Overall flow of CAM
    Overall flow of SAM
    Fig. 7. Overall flow of SAM
    Real infrared images and binarised labels
    Fig. 8. Real infrared images and binarised labels
    Point source generated by PSF combined with rotation transformation
    Fig. 9. Point source generated by PSF combined with rotation transformation
    Synthetic infrared images and labels based on PSF
    Fig. 10. Synthetic infrared images and labels based on PSF
    Synthetic infrared images and labels based on Mosaic
    Fig. 11. Synthetic infrared images and labels based on Mosaic
    Correspondence of indicator variable
    Fig. 12. Correspondence of indicator variable
    Effects comparison of different epoch
    Fig. 13. Effects comparison of different epoch
    RF_measure index comparison of typical deep learning model. (a) RF_measure metric iterations for each deep learning model on the IR_GS Dataset; (b) RF_measure metric iterations for each deep learning model on the IR_GMS Dataset
    Fig. 14. RF_measure index comparison of typical deep learning model. (a) RF_measure metric iterations for each deep learning model on the IR_GS Dataset; (b) RF_measure metric iterations for each deep learning model on the IR_GMS Dataset
    Comparison of detection results for different algorithms
    Fig. 15. Comparison of detection results for different algorithms
    Given infrared images and predicted results
    Fig. 16. Given infrared images and predicted results
    CombinationLayerKernel_sizeStridePaddingDilationIn_channelOut_channelReLU_param
    EncoderCBL_131113640.2
    CBL_2312264640.2
    CBL_3314464640.2
    CBL_4318864640.2
    CBL_531161664640.2
    CBL_631323264640.2
    CBL_731646464640.2
    DecoderCBL_831323264640.2
    CBL_9311616128640.2
    CBL_103188128640.2
    CBL_113144128640.2
    CBL_123122128640.2
    CBL_133111128640.2
    Table 1. Design parameters of encoding-decoding
    DatasetSynthesisMosaic augmentationTotalTraining setValid setLSNR /dB
    IR_GS Dataset1000099001002.83
    IR_GMS Dataset15000149501502.96
    Table 2. Dataset expansion mode and details
    DatasetNetworkRFPRRprecisionRrecallRF_measureSpeedup
    IR_GS DatasetMDvsFA_cGAN1.48×10-30.7400.3800.5021.6X
    DeepLab_ResNet7.32×10-40.2400.1890.2125.1X
    Fcn8x_ResNet4.23×10-40.3800.2820.3242.8X
    SegNet4.36×10-40.5810.3500.4361.6X
    UNet3.21×10-40.5260.3900.4481.2X
    UNet++3.16×10-40.6240.4140.4983.5X
    dilation5.64×10-40.7230.4030.5181X
    dilation_CBAM4.53×10-40.7470.4450.5581.2X
    IR_GMS DatasetMDvsFA_cGAN1.04×10-30.6830.5000.5781.6X
    DeepLab_ResNet4.44×10-40.3300.3420.3365.1X
    Fcn8x_ResNet5.01×10-40.4520.2860.3502.8X
    SegNet3.49×10-40.6070.4890.5421.6X
    UNet3.86×10-40.5970.4650.5221.2X
    UNet++3.17×10-40.5840.4830.5293.5X
    dilation5.46×10-40.6930.5420.6081X
    dilation_CBAM4.71×10-40.6700.5880.6261.2X
    Table 3. Comparison of experimental results of typical deep learning model
    Haicheng Qu, Xinxin Wang, Jun Ouyang. Infrared Small-Target Detection Based on Hybrid Domain Module and Hole Convolution[J]. Laser & Optoelectronics Progress, 2023, 60(10): 1010002
    Download Citation