## 3 Results  
### Experiments with Electromagnetic Simulation Data  
Our simulation experiments utilized electromagnetic simulation data of a space target model. The model was a Perfect Electric Conductor (PEC). Figure 8 illustrates the dimensions of this model. During the electromagnetic calculations, we established a frequency sweep range of 8-12 GHz with a step size of 0.04 GHz. The electromagnetic simulation parameters of the components are shown in Table 2.  
To present the results of the structures identification more intuitively, in this paper we perform ISAR imaging on the electromagnetic simulation data. Figure 9 shows the Pauli images at imaging angles of 30\({}^{\circ}\), 45\({}^{\circ}\), and 90\({}^{\circ}\). The results of different interpretation methods are marked on these images.  
As shown in Figure 10, the structure interpretation method based on Cameron decomposition mainly identifies the scattering centers as trihedral corner reflectors or plates. Even though these scattering centers indeed represent scattering mechanisms of trihedral/plate types, it is difficult to relate the results to the actual geometric structure of the target. Figure 11 shows the results of the proposed method, in which the data are labeled with the component names. The proposed method can identify components effectively when labeling data with component names. Thus, the locations of the fai  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{85.4 pt} p{56.9 pt} p{56.9 pt} p{56.9 pt}} \hline \hline
**Components** & \begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular} \\ \hline Fairing & & 40 to 85, 0.5 & \(-\)15 to 15, 1 \\ Bottom & 8 to 12, 0.04 & 45 to 135, 1 & \(-\)15 to 15, 1 \\ Swept Wings & & 45 to 90, 0.5 & 30 to 60, 1 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Electromagnetic simulation parameters of the components.  
Figure 8: Simulation model of the space target.  
\"Fairing\" and the locations of the swept wings are designated as \"Swept Wings\". These identification results have a better match with the actual structure of the target.  
In contrast to Cameron decomposition, Krogager decomposition and Cloude-Pottier decomposition are not limited to the decomposition of the target structure into canonical structures, and as such can be used to characterize the scattering mechanisms of more complex structures. However, according to Figure 12, Cloude-Pottier decomposition identifies all the scattering centers of the target as fairings. This is clearly contrary to the actual situation. Cloude-Pottier decomposition is suitable for asymmetric and complex scattering environments, and is widely used in SAR-based complex feature recognition. Therefore, it is less discriminative for man-made target structures. Comparing Figures 11-13, the results of Krogager decomposition are better than Cloude-Pottier decomposition, although the target's wing is still incorrectly recognized as a fairing. Although Krogager decomposition applies to man-made targets, Krogager decomposition coefficients do not differentiate the parts better than the selected features in this experiment.  
Overall, these results show that the proposed method has good performance on the simulation data.