feat: 导入 IRSTD 研究代码与文档(小目标检测)
- 新增 irstd 核心包、scripts、tests、configs - 新增研究文档:literature_review / mathematical_analysis / novelty_matrix / experiment_plan / research_decision / research_log / manuscript_outline - 新增 evidence、results 数据与审计产物 - 新增 pyproject.toml、requirements、.gitignore
This commit is contained in:
1 parent
9b4a29c4d2
commit
04bf90c09b
35 files changed
+2220
-2
No files matched your search
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
|
||||
# Manuscript outline — evidence gate, not a submission-ready paper
|
||||
|
||||
Working title: Matching-Aware Training and Finite-Sample Object-Level False-Alarm Calibration for Infrared Small Target Detection.
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Introduction:** operational mismatch between pixel overlap and object alarms. State measurable question: does matching-aware gate training improve recall under the same certified expected count budget? No first-ever graph/loss/calibration claims.
|
||||
2. **Related work:** SLS/SD/AC-SLSIoU/CG-IRNet; MDvsFA; graph candidate filtering; NeurIPS metric study; Neyman–Pearson learning; LTT/CRC. Explicitly distinguish segmentation, box detection and subpixel unmixing.
|
||||
3. **Problem:** candidate generation, one-to-one matching, FP/image versus P(any FA), distribution and sampling assumptions, immutable calibration family.
|
||||
4. **Method:** compact backbone, frozen candidate masks, canonical assignment, differentiable count upper bound, size-weighted positive loss and projected dual training. Explain why MLP is the first implementation; graph features only if ablation supports them.
|
||||
5. **Analysis:** unsafe conflict-edge counterexample, pixel splitting counterexample, matching-deficiency monotonicity, surrogate bound, tail-sum certificate, sample complexity and distribution-shift limits. Credit established statistical tools.
|
||||
6. **Experiments:** audited datasets and disjoint groups; all baselines get same calibration; three seeds; useful-certificate rate and recall; count budgets; real negative scenes; close pairs; cross-dataset transfer; latency/memory.
|
||||
7. **Failure analysis:** missed proposals, merged targets, canonical-label conservatism, sample scarcity, empty-output certificates, correlated exposures, annotation uncertainty.
|
||||
8. **Conclusion:** only claims supported by results; no assumed SOTA improvement.
|
||||
|
||||
Planned figures: object-versus-pixel threshold counterexample; method schematic; held-out Pd versus FP/image curves with calibrated points; sample-size/abstention curve; failure montage. Planned tables: prior-art distinctions; main comparisons at predeclared budgets; ablations; hardware costs. All result cells remain blank until actual runs.
|
||||
|
||||
Submission gate: full-text novelty audit, verified upstream baselines, nontrivial calibrated performance on real data, repeated tests, reproducible artifacts and an independent checking pass. The current package does not pass that gate.
|
||||
Reference in new issue
Block a user