{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024650780608052588, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.410526315789474, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of automatic target recognition system performance with full- and reduced-resolution correlators.

The performance of an automatic target recognition (ATR) system with full- and reduced-resolution correlators was compared. In addition, the ATR system performance with reduced-resolution filter sets designed by use of multiresolution analyasis (MA) and downsampling (DS) techniques was also compared. It was discovered that results obtained at the optical correlator subsystem level, pertaining to the relative merits of the MA and the DS techniques, could not be extrapolated to the system level. This was because target signature differences between the test and the training imagery were discovered to have a greater influence on system performance than the choice of filter design technique. In addition, it was found that, for the case in which the target signature and the reduced-resolution filter were of the same size, there was some degradation in the receiver-operating-characteristic curve for reduced resolution compared with full. Nevertheless, this was deemed to have no practical significance, and thus the use of reduced-resolution optical correlators for ATR merits serious consideration.