Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Rethinking Generalizable Infrared Small Target Detection: A Real-scene Benchmark and Cross-view Representation Learning

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A domain-adaptive training recipe — channel alignment, Top-K fusion, and noise-guided learning — makes infrared small-target detectors generalize across datasets and achieves the best IoU, Pd, and Fa on a new benchmark.

desk verdict A useful new UAV infrared dataset and a sensible domain-robust training recipe, but the experimental protocol has a circularity problem that makes the headline numbers unverifiable. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.16487 v1 pith:BC4YK7ZP submitted 2025-04-23 cs.CV

Yahao Lu , Yuehui Li , Xingyuan Guo , Shuai Yuan , Yukai Shi , Liang Lin This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords infraredsmalltargetdetectiondomainshiftcross-viewchannelalignmentTop-KPoissonfusionnoise-guidedrepresentationlearningRealScene-ISTDbenchmarkmulti-datasettrainingUAVimagery
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tackles a practical failure mode: infrared small target detectors trained on one collection of images lose accuracy when applied to images from other sensors, weather conditions, or scenes, because the pixel distributions shift between datasets. To counter this, it proposes a training framework with three interlocking parts: Cross-view Channel Alignment (gamma-correcting source images toward the target domain's gray-level distribution), Cross-view Top-K Poisson Fusion (pasting target patches into the most similar background regions to create realistic synthetic samples), and Noise-guided Representation Learning (adding Gaussian noise to inputs and forcing clean and noisy feature maps to match). The paper also introduces RealScene-ISTD, a 739-image benchmark of real infrared drone scenes with diverse targets, backgrounds, poses, and noise. In multi-dataset training, the method reports IoU of 79.32%, a detection probability of 96.83%, and a false alarm rate of 5.40 on RealScene-ISTD; on IRSTD-1K it reports IoU of 72.44%, a detection probability of 95.30%, and a false alarm rate of 14.08, outperforming seven earlier detectors including SCTransNet. If the results hold, one model can be trained on several heterogeneous infrared datasets at once instead of being retuned per domain.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the joint training objective $L_{\text{total}} = L_{\text{BCE}} + L_{\text{Noise}}$ applied on top of the Cross-view Top-K Fusion samples. $L_{\text{BCE}}$ is the standard binary cross-entropy segmentation loss; $L_{\text{Noise}} = \|F^P_{\text{Global}} - F^N_{\text{Global}}\|^2$ is the MSE between the global multi-scale features of clean and noise-added versions of the same image, computed from a shared-weight encoder-decoder with Attention Features Fusion. The other two pieces feed this objective: Cross-view Channel Alignment computes a gamma factor $\gamma_{\text{Gray}}$ from the mean gray-levels of source and target domains so that $O_{\text{Gray}}=(I_{\text{Gray}}/255)^{1/\gamma_{\text{Gray}}}$, while Cross-view Top-K Poisson Fusion uses SSIM to find the K most similar background regions for each target patch and blends them with Poisson gradient-domain fusion. Together they create a training distribution that is aligned across domains, richer in target-background combinations, and robust to the thermal noise that varies between sensors.

What would settle it

Release the exact RealScene-ISTD train/test split, choose $\alpha$ on a held-out validation set, and recompute the multi-dataset comparison; if the IoU, Pd, and Fa margins over SCTransNet shrink to a few points or reverse, the claimed generalization gains are not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that domain shift, not model capacity, is the main obstacle to generalizable infrared small target detection, and that the obstacle can be lowered by a specific training recipe. The paper shows that simply merging multiple datasets degrades existing detectors — for example, UIU-Net's false alarm rate explodes to 7008.86 — and that its three proposed mechanisms reverse this degradation. Cross-view Channel Alignment maps the source domain's gray-level distribution toward the target domain through a per-channel gamma factor, so multi-dataset training sees more consistent statistics. Cross-view Top-K Poisson Fusion crops real target patches and blends them into the K most SSIM-similar background regions, producing synthetic samples that preserve realistic edges and expand the target-background combinations the model sees. Noise-guided Representation Learning adds zero-mean Gaussian noise with variance $\alpha^2$ and minimizes the MSE between the global feature maps of clean and noisy copies, forcing the encoder to retain noise-invariant target structure. With the best $\alpha = 0.6$, the framework reports 79.32 IoU, 96.83 Pd, and 5.40 Fa on RealScene-ISTD and 72.44 IoU, 95.30 Pd, and 14.08 Fa on IRSTD-1K, beating SCTransNet and six other methods.

Load-bearing premise

The reported gains assume that the RealScene-ISTD images used to estimate target-domain statistics and to pick the noise strength $\alpha = 0.6$ are disjoint from the images used to report the final test metrics, so that a genuine train/test split exists for the new benchmark.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Multi-dataset training becomes a workable strategy for infrared small target detection: merging heterogeneous datasets no longer collapses accuracy, so models can be trained once on several sources rather than tuned per sensor.
  • The alignment and fusion modules are portable: adding CCA and Top-K Fusion to a different detector (ISTDU-Net) raises its IoU from 74.40 to 76.90 and cuts its false alarm rate from 75.35 to 39.69.
  • The noise-guided consistency loss is the largest single lever on false alarms: on RealScene-ISTD it drops the false alarm rate from 47.19 to 29.61 while raising IoU from 76.56 to 77.69.
  • The released RealScene-ISTD benchmark gives the community a common testbed for cross-domain generalization, with the same multi-dataset training protocol used for all comparisons.
  • The full framework delivers the paper's headline numbers: 79.32 IoU, 96.83 Pd, and 5.40 Fa on RealScene-ISTD, and 72.44 IoU, 95.30 Pd, and 14.08 Fa on IRSTD-1K, ahead of SCTransNet and six other state-of-the-art detectors.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same gamma-based channel alignment idea could transfer to other small-object or low-contrast detection tasks, such as medical imaging or remote sensing, because it makes no assumption about target type.
  • The Top-K fusion step's fixed SSIM top-K selection could be made adaptive, with the number of fused regions or the similarity metric learned per domain; the paper does not explore this variant.
  • The noise-level sweep suggests a performance plateau around $\alpha = 0.6$; a natural extension would be to anneal $\alpha$ during training rather than keep it constant.
  • The paper's framing that multi-dataset training degrades prior methods rests on one particular dataset combination; re-running the same comparison on other combinations would show how general the degradation really is.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a domain-adaptation framework for infrared small target detection (ISTD) with three main components: Cross-view Channel Alignment (CCA), which gamma-corrects source-domain images to match target-domain gray-level statistics; Cross-view Top-K Poisson Fusion, which pastes target patches into matched background regions; and Noise-guided Representation Learning, which imposes feature consistency between clean and noisy views. The authors also introduce RealScene-ISTD, a 739-image UAV infrared dataset, and report multi-dataset training experiments on NUAA-SIRST, IRSTD-1K, and RealScene-ISTD, claiming superior IoU, Pd, and Fa over seven baselines. The code is released.

Significance. If the reported results held, the paper would make a useful contribution: a new real-scene benchmark for ISTD and a practical combination of gamma alignment, Poisson blending, and noise-robust representation learning that improves cross-dataset generalization. The release of code and the construction of a new annotated dataset are concrete assets. However, the evaluation protocol as written is not verifiable: for RealScene-ISTD there is no documented train/test split, the noise-strength hyperparameter alpha is selected on the final test set, and the target-domain statistics used by CCA may be computed on test images. These issues directly affect the central claim of state-of-the-art generalization, so the paper is not acceptable in its current form.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section IV and V-B] The manuscript never defines a train/test split for RealScene-ISTD. Section IV states that the 739 images are used 'for Real-Scene training and validate them separately,' but no split ratio, file list, or protocol is given. Section V-B trains all methods on NUAA-SIRST + IRSTD-1K + RealScene-ISTD, and Table II reports test results on RealScene-ISTD from that same training set. If the 739 images appear in both training and testing, the headline improvements (79.32 IoU, 96.83 Pd, 5.40 Fa) are training-set accuracy, not generalization, and the comparison against SCTransNet and other methods is circular. This concern is reinforced by internal numeric inconsistencies: Table I reports SCTransNet multi-dataset RealScene-ISTD as 77.00 IoU/93.23 Pd/60.51 Fa, while Table II reports 75.01/94.29/53.59; Table VII's baseline row equals Table II's SCTransNet row exactly (75.01/94.29/53.59), suggesting mislabeled or duplicated rows. These inconsistencies do not by themselves refute the method, but they make the reported gains unverifiable without a defined split.
  2. [Section V-D, Table IV] The hyperparameter alpha in LNoise is selected by evaluating on the RealScene-ISTD test set, as shown in Table IV where alpha=0.6 is chosen as optimal, and the same test set is then used to report the final results in Tables II, III, and VII. This is test-set tuning: the improvement attributed to LNoise (e.g., Fa dropping from 47.19 to 29.61 at alpha=0.6, or the full-model Fa of 5.40 in Table VII) is partly a selection artifact. The authors should use a held-out validation split for alpha selection and report final metrics on an untouched test split.
  3. [Section III-B and Algorithm 1] The CCA gamma factor gammaGray is derived from the mean pixel intensity of the target domain XT (Algorithm 1), but the manuscript does not specify whether XT includes the RealScene-ISTD images used for testing. If target-domain statistics are computed over the test images, CCA leaks test-set information into the training data. The paper must specify exactly which images are used to estimate gammaGray and ensure they are disjoint from the test set.
  4. [Tables I, V, VI, VII] There are multiple internally inconsistent or incorrectly reported numbers. Table I gives SCTransNet multi-dataset RealScene-ISTD as 77.00 IoU / 93.23 Pd / 60.51 Fa, while Table II gives 75.01 / 94.29 / 53.59 for the same setting; Table VII's baseline row is identical to Table II's SCTransNet row. Table V reports a Fa decrease from 47.19 to 29.61 as '↑17.58%', and Table VI reports Fa decreases as '↑4.92%' and '↑3.30%', but a decrease in false alarm rate is an improvement and should be reported with a downward arrow or as a negative percentage change. Table I also contains implausible values for UIU-Net (e.g., Fa 7008.86 with '↓6946.92%'). These inconsistencies make the quantitative claims difficult to audit and must be corrected.
  5. [Section V-D and all comparison tables] All experimental comparisons appear to be single runs with no error bars or significance tests. Several differences are small (e.g., baseline IoU 76.56 vs. alpha=0.4 IoU 76.57 in Table IV, or SCTransNet IoU 76.56 in Table IX vs. 75.01 in Table II), so without multiple seeds it is not possible to determine whether the reported improvements are statistically meaningful. The authors should report mean and standard deviation over at least three runs for all key tables.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section III] There are several typos and grammatical errors: 'develope' in the abstract, 'Corss-view' in the Section III-B heading, 'hermal noise' before Eq. (6), 'γGary' in Algorithm 1, and 'Comparations' in Section V-C. These should be fixed throughout.
  2. [References] Reference [49] appears to be the same paper as reference [24] (both cite the ACM paper by Dai et al.). Please renumber or cite the actual sources correctly.
  3. [Section V-C] The ROC curve comparison in Fig. 9 is mentioned but the curves are not described in enough detail; please add axis labels and legend information so that the curves are interpretable.
  4. [Section III-C, Eq. (8)] Equation (8) omits the averaging/normalization typically used in an MSE loss; please clarify whether the reported LNoise is a mean over all spatial and channel positions or a sum.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

RealScene-ISTD and IRSTD-1K are used as both training and test sets with no documented split, and the LNoise hyperparameter alpha is selected on the same test set, so part of the reported gains is a test-set selection artifact.

  1. other [Section IV (RealScene-ISTD Benchmark); Section V-B (Experiment Settings); Tables II and III]
    "To tackle the cross-dataset challenge, we combine the NUAA-SIRST [49], IRSTD-1K [50], and 739 high-quality annotated UA V images for Real-Scene training and validate them separately. ... we merge the NUAA-SIRST, IRSTD-1K, and RealScene-ISTD datasets for training and perform independent validation."

    As written, the 739 RealScene-ISTD images are part of the training set, and the same RealScene-ISTD set is then reported as the test set in Tables II and III, with no split ratio, file list, or held-out partition defined. The headline IoU/Pd/Fa values for Ours and every baseline therefore measure performance on the training images, so the claimed cross-domain generalization result is, by the paper's own protocol, a fit to the same data rather than a prediction on a disjoint test distribution.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section V-D (Ablation Study, hyperparameter alpha); Tables IV and VII]
    "we conduct an ablation study on α using the baseline model, specifically on the RealScene-ISTD dataset. As shown in Tab. IV, the model achieves the best performance when α = 0.6. ... The experiments were performed on the RealScene-ISTD test set, and the ablation results are shown in Tab. VII."

    Alpha is the noise variance in Eq. (6), X_Noise = X_P + N(0, alpha^2). The paper selects alpha by maximizing IoU/Pd/Fa on the RealScene-ISTD test set, then reports the final method with alpha = 0.6 on that same test set (Table VII final row: 79.32 IoU). The LNoise gain is therefore not an independent prediction but a test-set-selected hyperparameter, so part of the reported improvement is a selection artifact.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III-B (Cross-view Channel Alignment, Algorithm 1); Section V-D]
    "We first calculate the channel gamma value γGray from the source domain to the target domain, and then perform gamma correction on the source domain image XS. ... for v← 1 to NT do Mean (XT ) = Mean (xt v) end for ... The experiments were performed on the RealScene-ISTD test set."

    The CCA gamma factor is computed from the mean intensity of the target-domain images X_T. Under the protocol as written, X_T for the RealScene-ISTD experiments is the same RealScene-ISTD set later used for testing, so the channel-alignment transform is fitted to test-domain statistics before the model is evaluated on those images. The CCA gain reported in Table VI (77.30 IoU with CCA vs. 75.01 without) is thus not a clean out-of-domain result; it incorporates test-domain distribution information.

full rationale

The circularity is concentrated in the evaluation protocol rather than in the theoretical derivation of the modules. The paper's central empirical claim is that the proposed framework generalizes across infrared domains, but the experiments train on RealScene-ISTD and IRSTD-1K and then report test numbers on the same datasets, with no train/test split, file list, or split ratio given for the newly introduced RealScene-ISTD. Under that protocol, the reported IoU/Pd/Fa values for every method are training-set fits, not held-out predictions. Independently of that, the LNoise hyperparameter alpha is chosen on the RealScene-ISTD test set, and the best value is then used for the final reported result, so part of the LNoise gain is a test-set selection artifact. The CCA gamma factor is also computed from target-domain statistics; when the target domain is the same set used for testing, the alignment uses test-domain information. I did not find a load-bearing self-citation chain: references [29] and [30] involve the authors but are used only as related work, not to justify the method's correctness. The numeric inconsistencies between Tables I, II, and VII (e.g., SCTransNet's RealScene-ISTD row differs across tables and the Table VII baseline row duplicates Table II's SCTransNet row) are correctness risks and further hinder verification, but they are not themselves circularity. Because the main benchmark claim is undermined by the train-on-test protocol and the test-set-selected hyperparameter, the appropriate score is 6: partial circularity in the reported predictions.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is empirical and depends on three tuned quantities: the noise variance alpha, the gamma alignment factor, and the Top-K fusion count. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced. The stated axioms are standard image-processing identities plus domain assumptions about what makes features transfer across infrared sensors.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha = 0.6
    Gaussian noise variance in XNoise = XP + N(0, alpha^2); selected by ablation on the RealScene-ISTD test set (Tab. IV).
  • gammaGray = derived from source/target means
    Gamma correction factor in Eq. 1, computed to match the mean pixel intensity of source and target domains (Algorithm 1).
  • K (Top-K) = not specified
    Number of matched regions used in Cross-view Top-K Poisson Fusion (Eq. 3); no ablation is shown.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math SSIM and Poisson fusion equations define similarity and blending (Eqs. 2-4).
    These are established image processing tools used without proof.
  • domain assumption Gamma correction of source-domain pixel intensities to match target means reduces domain shift.
    The effectiveness of CCA relies on the assumption that low-order pixel statistics matter for ISTD generalization.
  • domain assumption Gaussian noise addition and feature-consistency loss make learned features noise-robust.
    The method assumes noise perturbation is a valid proxy for cross-sensor variation and that consistency in feature space transfers.
  • domain assumption RealScene-ISTD annotations are accurate and consistently pixel-level annotated.
    All reported metrics depend on ground-truth quality; the paper states manual annotation but offers no inter-annotator agreement or quality measure.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rethinking Generalizable Infrared Small Target Detection: A Real-scene Benchmark and Cross-view Representation Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BC4YK7ZP

@misc{pith2026250416487,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rethinking Generalizable Infrared Small Target Detection: A Real-scene Benchmark and Cross-view Representation Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BC4YK7ZP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.16487}
}
read the original abstract

Infrared small target detection (ISTD) is highly sensitive to sensor type, observation conditions, and the intrinsic properties of the target. These factors can introduce substantial variations in the distribution of acquired infrared image data, a phenomenon known as domain shift. Such distribution discrepancies significantly hinder the generalization capability of ISTD models across diverse scenarios. To tackle this challenge, this paper introduces an ISTD framework enhanced by domain adaptation. To alleviate distribution shift between datasets and achieve cross-sample alignment, we introduce Cross-view Channel Alignment (CCA). Additionally, we propose the Cross-view Top-K Fusion strategy, which integrates target information with diverse background features, enhancing the model' s ability to extract critical data characteristics. To further mitigate the impact of noise on ISTD, we develop a Noise-guided Representation learning strategy. This approach enables the model to learn more noise-resistant feature representations, to improve its generalization capability across diverse noisy domains. Finally, we develop a dedicated infrared small target dataset, RealScene-ISTD. Compared to state-of-the-art methods, our approach demonstrates superior performance in terms of detection probability (Pd), false alarm rate (Fa), and intersection over union (IoU). The code is available at: https://github.com/luy0222/RealScene-ISTD.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.16487 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our Noise-guided Representation Learning process. Compared to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the proposed generalizable infrared small target detection framework. (a) The Cross-view Channel Alignment and Top-K Poisson Fusion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Cross-view Top-K Poisson Fusion operates by scanning the image [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Cross-view Channel Alignment effectively improves the alignment of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Effectiveness of Cross-view Top-K Poisson Fusion. Unlike conven [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Illustrate the impact of Noise-guided Representation Learning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Representative samples from our RealScene-ISTD. Part A showcases various UAV target types, while Parts B and C highlight the dataset’s diversity, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The visualization results of each model on the RealScene-ISTD dataset are presented. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of ROC curves for different methods on the RealScene [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Exploiting Gaussian Agnostic Representation Learning with Diffusion Priors for Enhanced Infrared Small Target Detection

    cs.CV 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Gaussian-sampled non-uniform quantization plus a two-stage diffusion reconstruction generates synthetic infrared images that improve small target detection under data scarcity.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Micro-doppler signature-based detection, classification, and localization of small uav with long short-term memory neural network,

    Y . Sun, S. Abeywickrama, L. Jayasinghe, C. Yuen, J. Chen, and M. Zhang, “Micro-doppler signature-based detection, classification, and localization of small uav with long short-term memory neural network,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 59, no. 8, pp. 6285–6300, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Online infrared uav target tracking with enhanced context-awareness and pixel- wise attention modulation,

    H. Fang, C. Wu, X. Wang, F. Zhou, Y . Chang, and L. Yan, “Online infrared uav target tracking with enhanced context-awareness and pixel- wise attention modulation,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 62, pp. 1–17, 2024. 10

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Guided attention and joint loss for infrared dim small target detection,

    Y . Tong, J. Liu, Z. Fu, Z. Wang, H. Yang, S. Niu, and Q. Tan, “Guided attention and joint loss for infrared dim small target detection,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 62, pp. 1–14, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Uav-based thermal radiation directionality capture and its evaluation on kernel-driven models,

    Q. Hu, W. Yu, S. Zhu, Y . Huang, X. Zhang, M. Liu, and B. Cao, “Uav-based thermal radiation directionality capture and its evaluation on kernel-driven models,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 63, pp. 1–11, 2025

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Autonomous exploration under canopy for forest investigation using lidar and quadrotor,

    H. Yao and X. Liang, “Autonomous exploration under canopy for forest investigation using lidar and quadrotor,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 62, pp. 1–19, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    A lightweight cnn–transformer network with laplacian loss for low-altitude uav imagery semantic segmentation,

    W. Lu, Z. Zhang, and M. Nguyen, “A lightweight cnn–transformer network with laplacian loss for low-altitude uav imagery semantic segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 62, pp. 1–20, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Infrared maritime dim small target detection based on spatiotemporal cues and directional morphological filtering,

    Y . Li, Z. Li, C. Zhang, Z. Luo, Y . Zhu, Z. Ding, and T. Qin, “Infrared maritime dim small target detection based on spatiotemporal cues and directional morphological filtering,” Infrared Physics & Technology, vol. 115, p. 103657, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Infrared target detection in cluttered environments by maximization of a target to clutter ratio (tcr) metric using a convolutional neural network,

    B. McIntosh, S. Venkataramanan, and A. Mahalanobis, “Infrared target detection in cluttered environments by maximization of a target to clutter ratio (tcr) metric using a convolutional neural network,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems , vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 485–496, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Infrared small target detection based on the weighted strengthened local contrast measure,

    J. Han, S. Moradi, I. Faramarzi, H. Zhang, Q. Zhao, X. Zhang, and N. Li, “Infrared small target detection based on the weighted strengthened local contrast measure,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters , vol. 18, no. 9, pp. 1670–1674, 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    A local contrast method for infrared small-target detection utilizing a tri-layer window,

    J. Han, S. Moradi, I. Faramarzi, C. Liu, H. Zhang, and Q. Zhao, “A local contrast method for infrared small-target detection utilizing a tri-layer window,”IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters , vol. 17, no. 10, pp. 1822–1826, 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    Infrared small target detection via non-convex rank approximation minimization joint l 2, 1 norm,

    L. Zhang, L. Peng, T. Zhang, S. Cao, and Z. Peng, “Infrared small target detection via non-convex rank approximation minimization joint l 2, 1 norm,” Remote Sensing, vol. 10, no. 11, p. 1821, 2018

    2018

  4. [12]

    Patch spatial attention networks for semantic token transformer in infrared small target detec- tion,

    S. Liu, B. Qiao, S. Li, Y . Wang, and L. Dang, “Patch spatial attention networks for semantic token transformer in infrared small target detec- tion,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , pp. 1–1, 2025

    2025

  5. [13]

    Multibranch mutual-guiding learning for infrared small target detection,

    Q. Li, W. Zhang, W. Lu, and Q. Wang, “Multibranch mutual-guiding learning for infrared small target detection,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 63, pp. 1–10, 2025

    2025

  6. [14]

    Mlp-net: Multilayer perceptron fusion network for infrared small target detection,

    Z. Wang, C. Wang, X. Li, C. Xia, and J. Xu, “Mlp-net: Multilayer perceptron fusion network for infrared small target detection,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 63, pp. 1–13, 2025

    2025

  7. [15]

    Infrared small target detection based on gradient correlation filtering and contrast measurement,

    X. Zhang, J. Ru, and C. Wu, “Infrared small target detection based on gradient correlation filtering and contrast measurement,” IEEE Transac- tions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 61, pp. 1–12, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Small target detection using bilateral filter and temporal cross product in infrared images,

    T.-W. Bae, “Small target detection using bilateral filter and temporal cross product in infrared images,” Infrared Physics & Technology , vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 403–411, 2011

    2011

  9. [17]

    Tnlrs: Target-aware non-local low-rank modeling with saliency filtering regularization for infrared small target detection,

    H. Zhu, H. Ni, S. Liu, G. Xu, and L. Deng, “Tnlrs: Target-aware non-local low-rank modeling with saliency filtering regularization for infrared small target detection,”IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 29, pp. 9546–9558, 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    A robust infrared small target detection algorithm based on human visual system,

    J. Han, Y . Ma, B. Zhou, F. Fan, K. Liang, and Y . Fang, “A robust infrared small target detection algorithm based on human visual system,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, vol. 11, no. 12, pp. 2168–2172, 2014

    2014

  11. [19]

    Small target detection utilizing robust methods of the human visual system for irst,

    S. Kim, Y . Yang, J. Lee, and Y . Park, “Small target detection utilizing robust methods of the human visual system for irst,” Journal of infrared, millimeter, and terahertz waves , vol. 30, pp. 994–1011, 2009

    2009

  12. [20]

    Attentional local contrast networks for infrared small target detection,

    Y . Dai, Y . Wu, F. Zhou, and K. Barnard, “Attentional local contrast networks for infrared small target detection,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 9813–9824, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Dense nested attention network for infrared small target detection,

    B. Li, C. Xiao, L. Wang, Y . Wang, Z. Lin, M. Li, W. An, and Y . Guo, “Dense nested attention network for infrared small target detection,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 32, pp. 1745–1758, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  15. [23]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, “U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,” pp. 234–241, 2015

    2015

  16. [25]

    Receptive-field and direction induced attention network for infrared dim small target detection with a large-scale dataset irdst,

    H. Sun, J. Bai, F. Yang, and X. Bai, “Receptive-field and direction induced attention network for infrared dim small target detection with a large-scale dataset irdst,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 61, pp. 1–13, 2023

    2023

  17. [26]

    Uiu-net: U-net in u-net for infrared small object detection,

    X. Wu, D. Hong, and J. Chanussot, “Uiu-net: U-net in u-net for infrared small object detection,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 32, pp. 364–376, 2022

    2022

  18. [27]

    Sctransnet: Spatial- channel cross transformer network for infrared small target detection,

    S. Yuan, H. Qin, X. Yan, N. Akhtar, and A. Mian, “Sctransnet: Spatial- channel cross transformer network for infrared small target detection,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , 2024

    2024

  19. [28]

    Infrared small target detection based on adjustable sensitivity strategy and multi-scale fusion,

    J. Zhao, Z. Shi, C. Yu, and Y . Liu, “Infrared small target detection based on adjustable sensitivity strategy and multi-scale fusion,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.20090, 2024

    2024

  20. [29]

    Diff-mosaic: augmenting realistic representations in infrared small target detection via diffusion prior,

    Y . Shi, Y . Lin, P. Wei, X. Xian, T. Chen, and L. Lin, “Diff-mosaic: augmenting realistic representations in infrared small target detection via diffusion prior,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , 2024

    2024

  21. [30]

    Beyond full labels: Energy-double-guided single-point prompt for infrared small target label generation,

    S. Yuan, H. Qin, R. Kou, X. Yan, Z. Li, C. Peng, D. Wu, and H. Zhou, “Beyond full labels: Energy-double-guided single-point prompt for infrared small target label generation,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing , 2025

    2025

  22. [31]

    Detection of dim targets in digital infrared imagery by morphological image processing,

    J.-F. Rivest and R. Fortin, “Detection of dim targets in digital infrared imagery by morphological image processing,” Optical Engineering , vol. 35, no. 7, pp. 1886–1893, 1996

    1996

  23. [32]

    A local contrast method for small infrared target detection,

    C. L. P. Chen, H. Li, Y . Wei, T. Xia, and Y . Y . Tang, “A local contrast method for small infrared target detection,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 574–581, 2014

    2014

  24. [33]

    Infrared patch-image model for small target detection in a single image,

    C. Gao, D. Meng, Y . Yang, Y . Wang, X. Zhou, and A. G. Hauptmann, “Infrared patch-image model for small target detection in a single image,” IEEE transactions on image processing , vol. 22, no. 12, pp. 4996–5009, 2013

    2013

  25. [34]

    Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition,

    Y . LeCun, L. Bottou, Y . Bengio, and P. Haffner, “Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition,” Proceedings of the IEEE , vol. 86, no. 11, pp. 2278–2324, 1998

    1998

  26. [35]

    Miss detection vs. false alarm: Adversarial learning for small object segmentation in infrared images,

    H. Wang, L. Zhou, and L. Wang, “Miss detection vs. false alarm: Adversarial learning for small object segmentation in infrared images,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2019, pp. 8509–8518

    2019

  27. [36]

    Deep transfer metric learning,

    J. Hu, J. Lu, and Y .-P. Tan, “Deep transfer metric learning,” pp. 325–333, 2015

    2015

  28. [37]

    Unified deep supervised domain adaptation and generalization,

    S. Motiian, M. Piccirilli, D. A. Adjeroh, and G. Doretto, “Unified deep supervised domain adaptation and generalization,” pp. 5715–5725, 2017

    2017

  29. [38]

    Fine-grained recognition in the wild: A multi-task domain adaptation approach,

    T. Gebru, J. Hoffman, and L. Fei-Fei, “Fine-grained recognition in the wild: A multi-task domain adaptation approach,” pp. 1349–1358, 2017

    2017

  30. [39]

    Temporal domain generalization with drift-aware dynamic neural networks,

    G. Bai, C. Ling, and L. Zhao, “Temporal domain generalization with drift-aware dynamic neural networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.10664, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Domain general- ization: A survey,

    K. Zhou, Z. Liu, Y . Qiao, T. Xiang, and C. C. Loy, “Domain general- ization: A survey,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 4396–4415, 2022

    2022

  32. [41]

    Learning to diversify for single domain generalization,

    Z. Wang, Y . Luo, R. Qiu, Z. Huang, and M. Baktashmotlagh, “Learning to diversify for single domain generalization,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , 2021, pp. 834– 843

    2021

  33. [42]

    Contrastive test-time adaptation,

    D. Chen, D. Wang, T. Darrell, and S. Ebrahimi, “Contrastive test-time adaptation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2022, pp. 295–305

    2022

  34. [43]

    Improved test-time adaptation for domain generalization,

    L. Chen, Y . Zhang, Y . Song, Y . Shan, and L. Liu, “Improved test-time adaptation for domain generalization,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 24 172–24 182

    2023

  35. [44]

    Feature alignment and uniformity for test time adaptation,

    S. Wang, D. Zhang, Z. Yan, J. Zhang, and R. Li, “Feature alignment and uniformity for test time adaptation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 20 050–20 060

    2023

  36. [45]

    Tea: Test- time energy adaptation,

    Y . Yuan, B. Xu, L. Hou, F. Sun, H. Shen, and X. Cheng, “Tea: Test- time energy adaptation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 23 901–23 911

    2024

  37. [46]

    Learning from synthetic data: Addressing domain shift for semantic segmentation,

    S. Sankaranarayanan, Y . Balaji, A. Jain, S. N. Lim, and R. Chellappa, “Learning from synthetic data: Addressing domain shift for semantic segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2018, pp. 3752–3761

    2018

  38. [47]

    Behind every domain there is a shift: Adapting distortion-aware vision transformers for panoramic semantic segmentation,

    J. Zhang, K. Yang, H. Shi, S. Reiß, K. Peng, C. Ma, H. Fu, P. H. Torr, K. Wang, and R. Stiefelhagen, “Behind every domain there is a shift: Adapting distortion-aware vision transformers for panoramic semantic segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Int...

    2024

  39. [48]

    Swinfusion: Cross-domain long-range learning for general image fusion via swin transformer,

    J. Ma, L. Tang, F. Fan, J. Huang, X. Mei, and Y . Ma, “Swinfusion: Cross-domain long-range learning for general image fusion via swin transformer,” IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, vol. 9, no. 7, pp. 1200–1217, 2022

    2022

  40. [49]

    Asymmetric contextual modulation for infrared small target detection,

    Y . Dai, Y . Wu, F. Zhou, and K. Barnard, “Asymmetric contextual modulation for infrared small target detection,” pp. 950–959, 2021

    2021

  41. [50]

    Isnet: Shape matters for infrared small target detection,

    M. Zhang, R. Zhang, Y . Yang, H. Bai, J. Zhang, and J. Guo, “Isnet: Shape matters for infrared small target detection,” pp. 877–886, 2022

    2022

  42. [51]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 770–778, 2015

    2016

  43. [52]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 , 2014

    2014 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Delving deep into rectifiers: Surpassing human-level performance on imagenet classification,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Delving deep into rectifiers: Surpassing human-level performance on imagenet classification,” pp. 1026–1034, 2015

    2015

  45. [54]

    Istdu-net: Infrared small-target detection u-net,

    Q. Hou, L. Zhang, F. Tan, Y . Xi, H. Zheng, and N. Li, “Istdu-net: Infrared small-target detection u-net,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, vol. 19, pp. 1–5, 2022. Yahao Lu received the B.S. degree in 2023, from the School of Information Engineering, Guangdong Unive...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.