Improving Ship Detection in Clutter-Edge and Multi-Target Scenarios for High-Frequency Radar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As one of the main sensors for continuous maritime measurements of sea state parameters, high-frequency surface wave radar (HFSWR) also plays an important role in ship detection and tracking. Compact HFSWR often suffers from missing targets, especially when the target appears near the Doppler region with heavy sea clutter or near another target in a multi-target scenario. To address this problem, an automatic ship detection method based on time–frequency (TF) analysis is presented in this paper. The TF target ridge areas are extracted in the TF image via the eigenvalues of the Hessian matrix, image edge detection, and local maximum search. Then, whether ship signals exist in the TF ridges or not is decided by a decision threshold that is calculated by fitting the probability distribution function (PDF) of sea clutter in the TF domain. The proposed TF method can separate TF ridges of similar Doppler frequency and performs constant false alarm rate (CFAR) detection for TF targets, which facilitates detecting these targets that are masked by sea clutter and other large targets. Experimental results show that the number of detected ships that match with the automatic identification system (AIS) records is four times more than that obtained by the conventional constant false alarm rate (CFAR) detectors and 1.3 times more than that by the state-of-the-art TF method in consideration of approximately the same number of detected targets.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".