Paper
20 August 2001 Hyperspectral adaptive matched-filter detectors: practical performance comparison
Dimitris G. Manolakis, Christina Siracusa, David Marden, Gary A. Shaw
Author Affiliations +
Abstract
The unified treatment of adaptive matched filter algorithms for target detection in hyperspectral imaging data included a theoretical analysis of their performance under a Gaussian noise plus interference model. The purpose of this paper is to provide empirical analysis of algorithm performance using HYDICE data sets. First, we provide a concise summary of adaptive matched filter detectors, including their key theoretical assumptions, design parameters, and computational complexity. The widely used generalized likelihood ratio detectors, adaptive subspace detectors, constrained energy minimization (CEM) and orthogonal subspace projection (OSP) algorithm are the focus of the analysis. Second, we investigate how well the signal models used for the development of detection algorithms characterize the HYDICE data. The accurate modeling of the background is crucial for the development of constant false alarm rate (CFAR) detectors. Finally, we compare the different algorithms with regard to two desirable performance properties: capacity to operate in CFAR mode and target visibility enhancement.
© (2001) COPYRIGHT Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE). Downloading of the abstract is permitted for personal use only.
Dimitris G. Manolakis, Christina Siracusa, David Marden, and Gary A. Shaw "Hyperspectral adaptive matched-filter detectors: practical performance comparison", Proc. SPIE 4381, Algorithms for Multispectral, Hyperspectral, and Ultraspectral Imagery VII, (20 August 2001); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.437006
Lens.org Logo
CITATIONS
Cited by 17 scholarly publications.
Advertisement
Advertisement
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
Get copyright permission  Get copyright permission on Copyright Marketplace
KEYWORDS
Detection and tracking algorithms

Sensors

Target detection

Algorithm development

Data modeling

Antimony

Expectation maximization algorithms

Back to Top