| Literature DB >> 28505085 |
Yanbo Wei1, Zhizhong Lu2, Gannan Yuan3, Zhao Fang4, Yu Huang5.
Abstract
In this paper, the application of the emerging compressed sensing (CS) theory and the geometric characteristics of the targets in radar images are investigated. Currently, the signal detection algorithms based on the CS theory require knowing the prior knowledge of the sparsity of target signals. However, in practice, it is often impossible to know the sparsity in advance. To solve this problem, a novel sparsity adaptive matching pursuit (SAMP) detection algorithm is proposed. This algorithm executes the detection task by updating the support set and gradually increasing the sparsity to approximate the original signal. To verify the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm, the data collected in 2010 at Pingtan, which located on the coast of the East China Sea, were applied. Experiment results illustrate that the proposed method adaptively completes the detection task without knowing the signal sparsity, and the similar detection performance is close to the matching pursuit (MP) and orthogonal matching pursuit (OMP) detection algorithms.Entities:
Keywords: compressed sensing; radar signal; sparsity adaptive; target detection
Year: 2017 PMID: 28505085 PMCID: PMC5470796 DOI: 10.3390/s17051120
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The acquired X-band marine radar image.
The parameters of X-band marine radar.
| Radar Parameters | The Performance |
|---|---|
| Electromagnetic Wave Frequency | 9.3 GHz |
| Antenna Angular Speed | 22 r.p.m. |
| Antenna Height | 25 m |
| Polarization | HH |
| Range Resolution | 7.5 m |
| Horizontal Beam Width | 0.9° |
| Vertical Beam Width | 21° |
| Pulse Repetition Frequency | 2000 Hz |
| Pulse Width | 0.7° |
Figure 2The radar echo intensity in respective distant and angular direction. (a) The radar echo intensity of 300-th line in distance direction; (b) The radar echo intensity at 2400 m in angular direction.
Figure 3The comparison of the detection success rate versus sample points for different detection algorithms.
Figure 4The comparison of success rate versus SNR.
Figure 5The comparison of success rate versus threshold.
Figure 6The comparison of success rate versus step size.
Figure 7The performance of different detection algorithms.
The computing time performance of various detection algorithms.
|
|
| MP | OMP | SAMP | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| ||||||
| 50 | 6 | 0.2 | 0.916 | 0.0702 | 0.974 | 0.0711 | 0.997 | 0.0327 |
| 100 | 6 | 0.2 | 1 | 0.0734 | 0.980 | 0.0744 | 1 | 0.0329 |
| 50 | 6 | 0.25 | 0.756 | 0.0726 | 0.81 | 0.0708 | 0.934 | 0.0328 |
| 100 | 6 | 0.25 | 0.702 | 0.0733 | 0.93 | 0.0744 | 0.960 | 0.0333 |
| 50 | 10 | 0.2 | 1 | 0.0705 | 1 | 0.0709 | 1 | 0.0327 |
| 100 | 10 | 0.2 | 1 | 0.0734 | 1 | 0.0738 | 1 | 0.0332 |
| 50 | 10 | 0.25 | 0.996 | 0.0715 | 0.996 | 0.0708 | 1 | 0.0326 |
| 100 | 10 | 0.25 | 0.998 | 0.0728 | 1 | 0.0735 | 1 | 0.0332 |
The computing time performance of SAMP detection algorithm with various step size.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50 | 6 | 0.25 | 0.0346 | 0.0327 | 0.0324 |
| 50 | 10 | 0.25 | 0.0346 | 0.0326 | 0.0324 |
| 100 | 6 | 0.25 | 0.0596 | 0.0333 | 0.0325 |
| 100 | 10 | 0.25 | 0.0596 | 0.0333 | 0.0325 |