Analysis of Infrared Signature Variation and Robust Filter-Based Supersonic Target Detection

Table 5

Statistical performance comparisons of small infrared target detection methods (DR: detection rate, FAR: number of false alarms per frame, PE: position error).

Method	Performance measure	Set 1: syn. incoming	Set 2: syn. passing by	Set 3: real F-15 Multi	Set 4: real metis-M
TCF	DR (%)	100 (100/100)	100 (11/11)	98.78 (3,161/3,200)	99.13 (114/115)
	FAR (number/frame)	0 (0/100)	0 (0/11)	0.0025 (2/811)	0.4 (46/115)
	PE (pixel)	0.13	0.12	0.15	0.116
TVF	DR (%)	97 (97/100)	100 (11/11)	92.19 (2,950/3,200)	89.57 (103/115)
	FAR (number/frame)	0.6 (60/100)	4 (44/11)	0 (0/811)	0.16 (18/115)
	PE (pixel)	5.61	0.28	4.85	4.33
modTVF	DR (%)	100 (100/100)	100 (11/11)	91.09 (2,915/3,200)	36.52 (42/115)
	FAR (number/frame)	0.69 (69/100)	0 (0/11)	0.011 (9/811)	1.91 (220/115)
	PE (pixel)	0.15	0.14	0.17	0.17