PASTE: Physics-Aware Scattering Topology Embedding Framework for SAR Object Detection
Organizations: Key Laboratory for Information Science of Electromagnetic Waves (MoE), Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China
Abstract
Current deep learning-based object detection for Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) imagery mainly adopts optical image methods, treating targets as texture patches while ignoring inherent electromagnetic scattering mechanisms. Though scattering points have been studied to boost detection performance, most methods still rely on amplitude-based statistical models. Some approaches introduce frequency-domain information for scattering center extraction, but they suffer from high computation cost and poor compatibility with diverse datasets. Thus, effectively embedding scattering topological information into modern detection frameworks remains challenging. To solve these problems, this paper proposes the Physics-Aware Scattering Topology Embedding Framework (PASTE), a novel closed-loop architecture for comprehensive scattering prior integration. By building the full pipeline from topology generation, injection to joint supervision, PASTE elegantly integrates scattering physics into modern SAR detectors. Specifically, it designs a scattering keypoint generation and automatic annotation scheme based on the Attributed Scattering Center (ASC) model to produce scalable and physically consistent priors. A scattering topology injection module guides multi-scale feature learning, and a scattering prior supervision strategy constrains network optimization by aligning predictions with scattering center distributions. Experiments on real datasets show that PASTE is compatible with various detectors and brings relative mAP gains of 2.9% to 11.3% over baselines with acceptable computation overhead. Visualization of scattering maps verifies that PASTE successfully embeds scattering topological priors into feature space, clearly distinguishing target and background scattering regions, thus providing strong interpretability for results.
Figures & tables
| Baseline Detector | Stage | Anchor | Justification for Selection |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rotated RetinaNet | single | anchor-based | Classic one-stage anchor-based baseline; widely used in rotated object detection. |
| GWD | single | anchor-free | Represents anchor-free regression with probabilistic localization loss. |
| RoI Transformer | two | anchor-based | Converts horizontal RoIs to rotated ones via learnable transformation; tests PASTE on geometry-aware proposal refinement. |
| Rotated FCOS | single | anchor-free | Dense anchor-free detector; tests PASTE on center-ness assignment. |
| Oriented R-CNN (ResNet-50) | two | anchor-based | Strong two-stage CNN baseline; demonstrates PASTE compatibility with standard backbones. |
| Oriented R-CNN (Swin-T) | two | anchor-based | Swin-Transformer variant; evaluates PASTE on Transformer backbones. |
| Baseline Detector | [email protected] | [email protected] (+PASTE) | Gain | Relative gain (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rotated RetinaNet | 22.9 | 24 | 4.8% | |
| GWD | 26 | 27 | 3.8% | |
| RoI Transformer | 38 | 42.3 | 11.3% | |
| Rotated FCOS | 34.5 | 35.7 | 3.5% | |
| Oriented R-CNN (ResNet-50) | 39.2 | 43.3 | 10.5% | |
| Oriented R-CNN (Swin-T) | 41.3 | 44.4 | 7.5% |
| Baseline Detector | [email protected] | [email protected] (+PASTE) | Gain | Relative gain (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rotated RetinaNet | 37.2 | 38.9 | 4.6% | |
| GWD | 39.4 | 40.6 | 3.0% | |
| RoI Transformer | 45.4 | 48.7 | 7.3% | |
| Rotated FCOS | 45.4 | 46.7 | 2.9% | |
| Oriented R-CNN (ResNet-50) | 44.8 | 48.3 | 7.8% | |
| Oriented R-CNN (Swin-T) | 50 | 52 | 4.0% |
| Scenario | Proposal Precision (no PASTE) | Proposal Precision (with PASTE) |
|---|---|---|
| Offshore Ships | 81.4% | 93.1% |
| Inshore Ships | 56.7% | 59.5% |
| Terminal Aircrafts | 63.8% | 66.6% |
| STIM | SPSS | Keypoints Type | [email protected] |
|---|---|---|---|
| ✗ | 38 | ||
| ✓ | ✗ | 39.9 | |
| ✓ | ✓ | AMP-Keypoints | 40.6 |
| ✓ | ✓ | SKAA-Keypoints | 42.3 |
| Number of Keypoints | [email protected] |
| 3 | 41.6 |
| 6 | 41.4 |
| 9 | 43.3 |
| 12 | 42.6 |
| 15 | 42.1 |
| SPSS Weight | Gaussian Radius | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| [email protected] | [email protected] | ||
| 0.1 | 42.5 | 1 | 43.3 |
| 0.5 | 42.2 | 2 | 42.4 |
| 1 | 43.3 | 4 | 42.1 |
| 2 | 41.8 | 8 | 41.1 |
| Stage | Metric | Baseline | PASTE | Overhead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Annotation Generation | Avg time per sample (ms) | – | 413.5 | – |
| Training | Model size (MB) | 315.2 | 337.7 | +7.1% |
| Training time per epoch (s) | 588.4 | 661.5 | +12% | |
| Inference | FLOPs (G) | 211.44 | 274.3 | +29.7% |
| Latency per image (ms) | 61.7 | 72.4 | +17.3% |
Object Detection
Object detection locates and classifies objects in images or video, balancing localization accuracy, robustness, and inference speed.
See all 624 papers