The WIPI Model Based on Multi-Scale Local Contrast Post-Processing for Infrared Small Target Detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the infrared patch image (IPI) model theory, the infrared image background has a low rank and the target is sparse. The low-rank model can be used to separate the background and identify the target. However, in a noisy environment, the recognition effect will be affected. The higher the noise, the harder it would be to detect a small target. The residual strong fault and background edges could reduce the detection rate and increase false alarms. The traditional IPI model is adaptable to the background with the lower noise. This paper combines weighted nuclear norm minimization (WNNM) optimization with sparse representation based on the local IPI model. The background details are described more prominently by improving the nuclear norm weighting factor. The target is much easier to detect under the specific bright clouds and ground buildings background with high noise. At the same time, post-processing with image local contrast analysis is performed to compare traditional spatial filtering and local infrared patch image model algorithms. Our method has a good suppression effect on complex noise backgrounds and achieves a higher signal to clutter ratio gain (SCRG). It could also improve the target detection rate and reduce false alarms.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".