# Super-Resolution Reconstruction of an Array Lidar Range Profile
## 3 Experimental Results
### Real Detecting Data Experiment and Result Analysis
#### 3.2.1 Indoor Scene Experiment and Result Analysis  
For this radar system, we set the laser outgoing re-frequency to 10 kHz, pulse width to 5 ns, single-pulse energy to 120 \(\upmu\)J, and the transceiver instantaneous field of view to \(0.8^{\circ}\times 0.8^{\circ}\). A \(64\times 64\) low-resolution range profile was obtained by detecting a tank model and an armored vehicle model at a distance of 10 m from the lidar in an indoor environment, and 5 consecutively selected from the imaged range profile sequence as a low-resolution image sequence were used as the raw data input. Since nearest neighbor interpolation is better than bilinear interpolation and bicubic interpolation for image edge detail preservation, this experiment used nearest neighbor interpolation to complete the construction of high-resolution reference frames. Figures 6 and 7 show the effect of a 400% super-resolution reconstructed image, and Tables 3 and 4 show the results of evaluation indexes of different algorithms under different magnifications. blurring. The reconstruction effect of Figures 6f and 7f is clear and the edges are sharp, which can effectively retain the detailed information of the reconstructed images. Combining the effect diagrams with the evaluation index results from Tables 5 and 6, it can be seen that the details and edge information contained in the range profile of the armored vehicle model are significantly higher than those of the tank model range profile, which is due to the fact that the GM-APD is a single-photon probabilistic detector. The surface contour of the armored vehicle model is more complex than the surface of the tank model, the number of photons returned by the armored vehicle is lower than that of the tank model, and the number of gaps between the wheels is large, resulting in significantly more voids in the final range profile than in the tank model. The number of photons returned from the armored car is lower than the number of photons from the tank model, and there are considerable gaps between the wheels, which leads to the fact that there are more holes in the final range profile than in the tank model. As a result, the edge information of the range profile of the armored car model is significantly larger than that of the tank model. Figure 6: Super-resolution rendering of the tank model range profile with (**a**) the original tank model range profile; (**b**) bilinear tank model range profile; (**c**) bicubic tank model range profile; (**d**) POCS tank model range profile; (**e**) POCS [17] tank model range profile; and (**f**) the proposed tank model range profile. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**AG**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**ES**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Time/ms**} \\ \cline{2-10}  & \(\times\)**2** & \(\times\)**4** & \(\times\)**8** & \(\times\)**2** & \(\times\)**4** & \(\times\)**8** & \(\times\)**2** & \(\times\)**4** & \(\times\)**8** \\ \hline Bilinear & 4.28 & 2.37 & 1.24 & 42.60 & 25.64 & 13.80 & 4.9 & 6.3 & 7.2 \\ Bicubic & 5.98 & 3.17 & 1.61 & 55.26 & 33.85 & 18.01 & 5.2 & 7.4 & 8.1 \\ POCS & 9.35 & 3.90 & 1.97 & 64.52 & 38.69 & 20.85 & 18.2 & 25.3 & 34.2 \\ POCS [17] & 10.16 & 4.34 & 2.16 & 68.39 & 40.54 & 21.68 & 25.4 & 31.2 & 37.3 \\ Proposed & 10.69 & 4.56 & 2.24 & 71.48 & 42.21 & 22.52 & 29.5 & 35.3 & 42.6 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Comparison of the evaluation indicators of the armored car model range profile under different magnifications.