SIViP (2012) 6:223–230
DOI 10.1007/s11760-010-0207-3
ORIGINAL PAPER
Optimum second threshold for the CFAR binary integrator
in Pearson-distributed clutter
Hilal A. Meziani · Faouzi Soltani
Received: 25 June 2009 / Revised: 24 December 2010 / Accepted: 24 December 2010 / Published online: 12 January 2011
© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011
Abstract In this paper, we propose to analyze the binary
integration of the cell-averaging constant false-alarm rate
(CA-CFAR) and order statistics constant false-alarm rate
(OS-CFAR) detectors in the presence of non-Gaussian spiky
clutter modeled as a Pearson distribution. We derive new
closed form expressions for false alarm and detection prob-
abilities for the CA-CFAR detector in the presence of
Pearson-distributed clutter backgrounds. We first show that
the use of binary integration improves the detection proba-
bilities of the detectors considered. Secondly, the maximum
of detection probability occurs for an optimum choice when
the second threshold is set to be equal to M = (3/4)L. For
this optimum M-out-of-L rule, the comparison analysis of
the CA-CFAR and OS-CFAR binary integrators showed that
the latter has better performance in homogeneous Pearson-
distributed clutter.
Keywords CFAR detection · Pearson distribution ·
Optimum binary integration
1 Introduction
In radar automatic detection, the received signal is sampled in
range by the range resolution cells. The clutter background in
the cell under test is estimated by averaging the outputs of the
nearby resolution cells. The detection threshold is obtained
H. A. Meziani (B) · F. Soltani
Laboratoire Signaux et Systèmes de Communication,
Faculté des Sciences de l’Ingénieur, Département d’Electronique,
Université de Constantine, Route d’Ain Bey,
Constantine 25000, Algeria
e-mail: hameziani@yahoo.fr
F. Soltani
e-mail: f.soltan@yahoo.fr
by scaling the noise level estimate with a constant to achieve
a desired probability of false alarm. This is the conventional
CA-CFAR (cell-averaging constant false-alarm rate) detector
proposed by Finn and Johnson [1]. This detector is optimal
when the clutter power in the reference window is Gaussian
modeled (Rayleigh envelope distribution), independent, and
identically distributed.
In practical situation, multi-pulses transmission is
employed in order to combat the fading in the power of
the received signal at the antenna for single-pulse case. The
above problem is overcome by using binary integration that
is also referred to as coincidence detector or M-out-of-L
detection [2,3].
The binary integrator employs a two-step thresholding
technique. In the first step, a preliminary binary decision is
made about each pulse. The number of decisions where the
first threshold is exceeded is then counted. If this number
exceeds a second threshold M, a target is declared present.
In the adaptive thresholding techniques used in the first deci-
sion step, the threshold is proportional to the mean power
of the local clutter. Hence, the knowledge of the statistics of
the clutter is important in order to properly design a CFAR
detector. In real situations, the clutter statistics deviate from
Gaussian assumption. In many previous studies, the clutter
statistics were modeled as Log-normal, Weibull, and K-dis-
tribution [4–7]. Recent studies [8–10] showed that the clut-
ter amplitude distribution is more impulsive, when the radar
operates in high resolution and/or at low grazing angle and
suggests that the clutter can be modeled as a Pearson distri-
bution (also called Lévy-distribution) which is a heavy-tailed
distribution.
This paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, we pres-
ent a background on the positive alpha-stable distribution.
In Sect. 3, the problem is formulated. In Sects. 4 and 5,
we analyze the performance of the binary integrator for the
123
224
Fig. 1 Block diagram of the
CA-CFAR binary integrator
CA-CFAR and OS-CFAR detectors in non-Gaussian spiky
clutter modeled as a Pearson distribution. Section 6 presents
the results and gives the conclusion.
2 Positive alpha-stable distribution
Many real data show unsymmetrical and impulsive
characteristic that cannot be accommodated by the Gauss-
ian or symmetric alpha-stable distributions such as radar
signal processing and telecommunications modeling [11].
A skewed α-stable distribution can be used for modeling such
data. The positive alpha-stable distribution family is defined
only by their characteristic function given by
   π 
φ(ω) = Exp −γ |ω|α 1 + i sign(|ω|) tg α (1)
2
where sign(ω) is the sign function defined as
⎧ 2π yi3/2
⎨ 1 ω>0
sign(ω) = 0 ω=0 , (2)
⎩ For the i eme channel, the data available in the reference win-
−1 ω < 0
0 < α < 1 is the characteristic exponent, and γ > 0 is the
dispersion parameter. The Fourier transform of (1) leads to a
compact form only in the special case, α = 0.5, namely the
Pearson distribution type V, given by
γ 1 − γ2y2
pY (y) = √ e (3)
2π y 3/2
123
SIViP (2012) 6:223–230
In the remaining of the paper, we will refer to this distribution
simply as the Pearson distribution.
3 Problem formulation
For the analysis, we assume that L adjacent pulses hit the
point target inside the same range cell. The first decision
is based on a single-pulse basis, and the second decision is
based on the L pulse train, Figs. 1–2. To achieve that the
output of the square law detector of each channel is sampled
by the range resolution cells. The received signal is sampled
in range by the N + 1 range resolution cells resulting in
L × (N + 1) observations that are denoted by yi j . Under the
assumption that the observations are statistically independent
and identically distributed, the probability density function
(pdf) is
γ2
√γ 1 − 2yi j
pYi j (yi j ) = e i = 1, . . . , L
j
(4)
j = 1, . . . , N
dow are processed to obtain the statistic Z i that is the estimate
of the clutter level. To maintain the overall probability of false
alarm (Qfa) at a desired constant value when the clutter is
homogeneous, the detection threshold is obtained by scaling
the statistic Z i with a scale factor T which keeps the overall
probability of false alarm equal to the desired value. The test
cell Yi0 is compared with the adaptive threshold to make a
decision Di according to
SIViP (2012) 6:223–230 225

Fig. 2 Block diagram of the

OS-CFAR binary integrator

H1 where Pfa and Pd are the probability of false alarm and

> the probability of detection for single-pulse transmission,
Yi0 T Z i i = 1, . . . , L (5)
< respectively.
H0
The preliminary decision Di i = 1, . . . , L is made about the
presence H1 or the absence H0 of a target in the cell under 4 Analysis of the CA-CFAR detector
test. That is Di is equal to one if hypothesis H1 is decided
to be true and equal zero if hypothesis H0 is decided to be In the CA-CFAR detector, the clutter power is estimated by
true, respectively, of the i eme channel. In the second step, the summing the contents of N cells surrounding the cell under
processing of preliminary decisions D1 , D2 ,D3 , . . . , D L is test yi0 ; for this detector, we have
considered. The number of decisions where the first thresh-
1 
N
old is exceeded is counted and compared to the second
threshold M. A final decision is made on the presence of Zi = yi j (9)
N
j=1
a target according to
H1 the clutter level estimate Z i is the sum of N Pearson-distrib-

L
> uted random variables with γ as the dispersion parameter.
Di M (6)
< Hence, the pdf is [10]
i=1
H0 √
γ N 1 − N2zγ 2
and for the final decision, the overall probability of false p Z i (z i ) = √ e i (10)
2π z i3/2
alarm and probability of target detection are given by
L 
 L 4.1 The probability of false alarm
Qfa = (Pfa )m (1 − Pfa ) L−m (7)
m
m=M
The probability of false alarm (Pfa) for the CA-CFAR detec-
and tor is given by (See Appendix A)
L 
 
L 2 1
Qd = (Pd )m (1 − Pd ) L−m (8) Pfa = arctg √
CA
(11)
m π
m=M NT

123
226 SIViP (2012) 6:223–230

This expression of the Pfa has a closed form compared to the estimate Z of the clutter level is there taken to be the kth
the one given in [10]. The overall Pfa can be obtained by largest samples Y(k)
substituting (11) into (7) which yields
Z i = Yi,(k) (19)
L 
 
 m
L 2 1
QfaCA = arctg √ The pdf of the estimate Z i is given by [10]
m π NT
j=m

  N −k
  L−m N γ
Z i (z i )
p OS =k 2 √ −1 2k−1
2 1
× 1 − arctg √ (12) k zi
π NT   k−1
γ γ 1 − 2zγ2
using the binomial development, we obtain × 1− √ √ e i (20)
zi 2π z i3/2
L  L−m 
L  L −m where N is the number of reference cells, k is the rank of the
QfaCA = (−1)t
m t representative cell, and (x) denotes the cumulative den-
m=M t=0
  t+m sity function of the normal Gaussian distribution, which is
2 1
× arctg √ (13) given by
π NT
x
1 t2
4.2 The probability of detection (x) = √ e− 2 dt (21)
2π
−∞
Assuming that the target in the cell under test is modeled as
a Swerling case II, the probability of detection is given by 5.1 The probability of false alarm
(See Appendix B)
γ √ From [10], using the fact that Erfc(x) = 1 − Erf(x) and the
PdCA = e− σ NT
(14)
binomial development, the probability of false alarm for
As previously, the same remark can be make for the closed the OS-CFAR detector in homogeneous Pearson clutter is
form expression of the probability of detection compared to expressed as
one given in [10]. The overall probability of detection is  k−1 

2 N k−1
L  PfaOS = k (−1)t
  √ m  γ√
 L−m π k t
L − σγ
Qd CA = e NT
1 − e− σ N T t=0

m=M
m +∞    N −k+t
z z z2
(15) × Erf √ Erf √ e− 2 dz (22)
2T 2
0
using the binomial development, we obtain
Hence, the overall probability of false alarm is obtained by
L 
 
L−m √
L L −m − γσ (t+m) N T
substituting (22) into (7), and using the binomial develop-
Qd CA = (−1)t e ment, we get
m t
m=M t=0
(16) L 
 L−m 
L  L −m
QfaOS = (−1)h
m h
as in [10], we define the generalized signal-to-noise ratio m=M h=0
⎡
(GSNR) as  k−1 
2 N  k−1
 ×⎣ k (−1)t
σ π k t
GSNR = 20 log10 (17) t=0
γ +∞
⎤ L+h
   N −k+t 2
z z z
× Erf √ Erf √ e− 2 dz ⎦
2T 2
0
5 Analysis of the OS-CFAR detector
(23)
In the OS-CFAR detector proposed by Rohling [12], the con-
tents of the range cells are first ordered according to their 5.2 The probability of detection
magnitude.
The single-pulse probability of detection for the OS-CFAR
Yi,(1) ≤ Yi,(2) ≤ · · · ≤ Yi,(k) ≤ · · · ≤ Yi,(N ) (18) detector in homogeneous Pearson background is given

123
SIViP (2012) 6:223–230 227

by [10]
 +∞
Tγ2
2 N −
PdOS = k e 2z 2 σ 2
π k
0
  N −k  k−1
z z − z2
× Erf √ Erfc √ e 2 dz (24)
2 2
which can be expressed using the fact that Erfc(x) =
1−Erf(x) and the binomial development as
 k−1 
2 N  k−1
PdOS = k (−1)t
π k t
t=0

+∞ Tγ2 2   N −k+t
− + z2 z
2z 2 σ 2
× e Erf √ dz (25)
2
0
Fig. 3 Probability of detection of the binary integration with
the overall probability of detection of the OS-CFAR detec- CA-CFAR detector versus GSNR for different second threshold
tor is then obtain by substituting (25) into (8), and using the M, N = 16, L = 8, overall design Pfa = 10−4
binomial development, we get
 L  L−m 
L  L −m
Qd OS = (−1)h
m h
m=M h=0
⎡
 k−1 
⎣ 2 N  k−1
× k (−1)t
π k t
t=0

+∞ 
⎤ L+h
Tγ2 2   N −k+t
− + z2 z
× e 2z 2 σ 2
Erf √ dz ⎦
2
0
(26)

6 Numerical results

In this section, we present the numerical results of the
above analysis and compare the performances of the binary
CA-CFAR integrator and binary OS-CFAR integrator in the
presence of homogeneous Pearson-distributed clutter.
To get the overall probability of detection, we first obtain
the threshold multiplier T of the two detectors considered by
solving numerically (13) and (23), respectively, for a desired
overall probability of false alarm and different M-out-of-L
rules. Then, the value of T is used to compute the proba-
bilities of detection of (17) and (26). Figures 3 and 4 show
the detection performances for an overall probability of false
alarm equal to 10−4 , a number of references cells N = 16, a
number of pulses L = 8, (k = 3N /4 for OS-CFAR only),
and different decision rules namely the 2 out-of 8, 6 out-of
8, and 8 out-of 8. The results show that for both detectors,
the 6 out-of 8 decision rule exhibits better performances than
the other decision rules for the Pearson distribution clutter.
To confirm this results, Figs. 5 and 6 show the minimum
required GSNR versus the second threshold M, we observe
Fig. 4 Probability of detection of the binary integration with
OS-CFAR detector versus GSNR for different second threshold
M, N = 16, L = 8, overall design Pfa = 10−4
that to achieve the minimum GSNR occurs when the M equal
6 (6 out-of 8) over a wide range of overall probabilities of
detection for both CFAR binary integrator considered.
In Fig. 7, we compare the detection performances of the
CA-CFAR and the OS-CFAR binary integrators for the opti-
mum decision rule obtained in the previous analysis. We
observe that the OS-CFAR binary integrator yields better
detection performance than the CA-CFAR binary detector in
homogeneous Pearson-distributed clutter.
7 Conclusions
In this paper, we have presented a theoretical analysis of the
performances of the CA-CFAR and OS-CFAR binary inte-

123
228 SIViP (2012) 6:223–230

Fig. 7 Comparison of detection performance of the binary integration

Fig. 5 Minimum required GSNR versus the second threshold M for with CA-CFAR and OS-CFAR detectors for the optimum decision rule,
the binary integration with CA-CFAR detector, N = 16, L = 8, overall N = 16, L = 8, overall design Pfa = 10−4
design Pfa = 10−4

Appendix A

In this Appendix, we present the derivation the Pfa of

the binary integrator with CA-CFAR detector in homoge-
neous Pearson-distributed clutter. The test statistic (5) can be
rewriten as

H1
Yi0 >
R= T i = 1, . . . , L (A.1)
Zi <
H0

the probability of false alarm is then given as

P f a C A = Pr ob(R > T |H0 )

+∞
Fig. 6 Minimum required GSNR versus the second threshold M for = p R (r ) dr (A.2)
the binary integration with OS-CFAR detector, N = 16, k = 12, L = 8,
overall design Pfa = 10−4 T

where p R (r ) is the pdf of the random variable R which is the

ratio of two random variables given by [13]

gration detectors in the presence of spiky clutter modeled as
a Pearson distribution. The analysis showed that the binary
integration improves the detection performances compared
to the single-pulse (L = 1) detectors, and the improvement
is obtained for optimum M out-of L. In our case, this opti-
mum occurs for M = (3/4)L. Finally, we showed that the
OS-CFAR binary integrator has better performances than the
CA-CFAR binary integrator for the optimum decision rule
in homogeneous Pearson-distributed clutter.
+∞
p R (r ) = pYi0 (r.z i ) p Z i (z i ) |z i | dz i (A.3)
0
where pYi0 (yi0 ) and p Z i (z i ) are the pdf of the CUT and Z i
the estimate of the clutter, respectively. We assume under
hypothesis H0 that the clutter is homogeneous and the
N + 1 reference range samples Yi0 , Yi1 , . . . , Yi N are inde-
pendent and identically distributed and follow the Pearson

123
SIViP (2012) 6:223–230 229

distribution given in (4). Substituting (4) into (A.3), we obtain given by

√ +∞ Pd CA = Pr ob(Yi0 > T.Z i |H1 )

γ2 N 1 − γ2
(N + r1 ) +∞
p R (r ) = e 2z i
dz i (A.4)
2π r 3/2 r2 = Pr ob[Yi0 > T.Z i |Z i , H1 ]. Pr ob[Z i |H0 ]dz i
0
0
⎛ ⎞
γ2 +∞ +∞
setting x = 2 z i (N + r ), we get
1
⎜ ⎟
= ⎝ pYi0 (yi0 |H1 )dyi0 ⎠ p Z i (z i )dz i (B.1)
√ +∞ 0 T.z i
N −x
p R (r ) = √ e dx (A.5) As in [10], we assume that the target in the cell under test
π (1 + r N ) r
0 is modeled as a Swerling case II, with σ as the parameter of
 +∞ the fluctuating target, and that the target power dominate the
or the integral 0 e− x dx = 1, hence the PDF of the ran- clutter background in the cell under test, the probability of
dom variable R is given by detection is given by
√ 1 − yi02
N pYi0 (yi0 |H1 ) = e 2σ (B.2)
p R (r ) = √ (A.6) 2σ 2
π (1 + r N ) r we substitute (B.2) and (10) into (B.1), we get

∞ Tγ2 N z i2
to obtain the Pfa, we substitute (A.6) into (A.2), we get 2N − +
2z i2 σ 2 2
Pd CA
= e dz i (B.3)
+∞ √ π
0
1 N
PfaCA = √ dr (A.7) to evaluate the integral, we use (eq. 1.3.3.20) [14], hence the
π (1 + r N ) r
T probability of detection is
√
√ γ
setting u = N r , we obtain PdC A = e− σ NT
(B.4)

+∞
2 1 References
Pfa CA
= du (A.8)
π√ (1 + u 2 )
NT 1. Finn, H.M., Johnson, R.S.: Adaptive detection mode with thresh-
old control as function of spatially sampled clutter level esti-
the evaluation of the integral gives mates. RCA Rev. 29, 414–463 (1968)
2. Weiner, M.A.: Binary integration of fluctuating targets. IEEE
2 π √  Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 27(1), 11–17 (1991)
PfaCA = − Arctg NT (A.9) 3. Himonas, S.D.: CFAR integration processors in randomly
π 2 arriving impulse interference. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron.
Syst. 30(3), 809–817 (1994)
using the fact that 4. Schleher, D.C.: Radar detection in Weibull clutter. IEEE Trans.
Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 12(6), 736–743 (1976)

1 π 5. Goldstein, G.B.: False alarm regulation in log-normal and weibull
Arctg + Arctg(x) = (A.10) clutter. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 9(1), 84–92 (1973)
x 2 6. Ward, K.D.: Compound representation of high resolution sea clut-
ter. Electron. Lett. 17, 561–563 (1981)
Hence, the probability of false alarm for the CA-CFAR in 7. Watts, S.: Radar detection prediction in sea clutter using the com-
distributed Pearson clutter is pound K-distribution model. IEE Proc., Part F 132, 613–620 (1985)
8. Pierce, R.D.: RCS characterisation using the alpha-stable distri-
 bution. In: Proceedings of the IEEE national Radar Conference,
2 1
PfaCA = Arctg √ (A.11) pp. 154–159 (1996)
π NT 9. Pierce, R. D.: Application of the positive alpha-stable distribution.
In: IEEE Signal Processing Workshop on Higher-Order Statistics,
pp. 420–424. Banff, Alberta, Canada (1997)
10. Tsakalides, P., Trinci, F., Nikias, C.L.: Performance assessment
Appendix B of CFAR processors in Pearson-distributed clutter. IEEE Trans.
Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 36(4), 1377–1386 (2000)
11. Kuruoglu, E.E.: Analytical representation for positive alpha stable
In this Appendix, we derive the probability of detection of the
densities. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference
binary integrator with CA-CFAR detector in homogeneous in Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, vol. 6, pp. 729–773
Pearson-distributed clutter. The probability of detection is (2003)

123
230 SIViP (2012) 6:223–230

12. Rohling, H.: Radar CFAR thresholding in clutter and multiple
target situations. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 19(4), 608–
621 (1983)
13. Papoulis, A.: Probability, Random Variables and Stochastic Pro-
cesses. McGraw-Hill, New York (1984)
14. Prudnikov, A.P., Brychkov, Y.A., Marichev, O.I.: Integrals and
Series, Volume 1: Elementary Functions. Gordon and Breach sci-
ence publishers, New York (1986)

123