Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 28 references

ChangeDiff: A Multi-Temporal Change Detection Data Generator with Flexible Text Prompts via Diffusion Model

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read ChangeDiff claims that a diffusion-based generator can synthesize semantic change-detection training pairs from text prompts controlling class ratios, and that these pairs improve detector accuracy and transferability.

desk verdict Useful SCD data generator with real low-data gains, but sparse-layout completion is under-validated and two claims overshoot the tables. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15541 v1 pith:2UVQYZ7S submitted 2024-12-20 cs.CV cs.AI

Qi Zang , Jiayi Yang , Shuang Wang , Dong Zhao , Wenjun Yi , Zhun Zhong This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords changedetectionsemanticdatasynthesisdiffusionmodeltext-to-layoutlayout-to-imagetextpromptsremotesensing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

ChangeDiff addresses the high cost of labeling semantic change detection (SCD) data by generating synthetic bitemporal training pairs with a diffusion model. The paper claims that by encoding a semantic layout as a text prompt made of class names and their area ratios (MCDG-TP), a text-to-layout diffusion model can complete sparse annotations and then produce temporally changed layouts through three text-editing modes. A layout-to-image model renders these layouts into realistic image pairs, and a class distribution refinement loss makes the text-to-layout model obey the requested class ratios and spatial positions. If this works, change detectors trained partly on synthetic pairs, even with only 5% of real training data, gain accuracy and transfer to other SCD benchmarks.

What carries the argument

The central object is the multi-class distribution-guided text prompt (MCDG-TP), which translates a semantic layout into a sequence of phrases of the form (class name, class ratio), where the ratio is the fraction of pixels belonging to that class. This prompt format lets a user control scene composition by editing which classes appear and at what proportions. To make a pre-trained text-to-image diffusion model obey this novel prompt format, the paper adds a class distribution refinement loss comprising two terms: a ratio term that aligns cross-attention activation coverage with the requested class ratios, and a spatial term that aligns the activation positions with the ground-truth layout. The layout-generation pipeline is driven by this loss during fine-tuning, and the image-generation side is driven by a L2I model augmented with noise stitching, where the latent noise for each time step is a linear blend of the previous noise and a fresh noise sample to preserve temporal continuity.

What would settle it

Compare the completed layouts generated from sparse SECOND annotations against dense semantic maps, either from HRSCD or from manually labeled regions of SECOND: if the completed layouts disagree with the actual land-cover classes at a high rate, then the synthetic image pairs inherit wrong masks and any downstream detector gains cannot be attributed to correct change supervision. A concrete experiment would be to compute pixel accuracy and per-class IoU of the generated completed layouts against dense labels on a held-out subset.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that a two-stage generation pipeline can turn text prompts into complete, temporally continuous semantic change data without paired images or external segmentation datasets. In the first stage, a text-to-layout (T2L) diffusion model, fine-tuned on sparse SCD annotations, takes a multi-class distribution-guided text prompt that lists each semantic class together with its desired area ratio, and generates a completed color-coded layout. In the second stage, a layout-to-image (L2I) model, built on a ControlNet-style conditioning structure, renders each layout into a realistic remote sensing image. The paper introduces three text-editing modes for the layout stage, ratio reshaper, class expander, and class reducer, to simulate time-varying events, and a noise stitching mechanism that keeps consecutive images semantically consistent. The result is a generator that produces large volumes of densely annotated SCD training pairs, and the experiments show consistent gains in the Sek, IoU, and F1 metrics across multiple SCD detectors when synthetic data is added to the training set, including a zero-shot transfer setting where the generator is trained on LoveDA and tested on SECOND.

Load-bearing premise

The pipeline assumes that fine-tuning a text-to-layout model on SCD annotations where only changed areas are labeled lets it fill in the missing background layout correctly when asked for the same classes with larger ratios.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If ChangeDiff is correct, SCD models can be trained or augmented with synthetic pairs when real annotations are scarce, lowering the annotation cost for change detection in new geographic regions.
  • The three text-editing modes provide a simple user interface for specifying change events: an operator could generate a scene where buildings appear, roads expand, or vegetation regresses by editing the class list in a sentence.
  • The same two-stage generation could be applied to other tasks that need dense pixel labels but only have sparse annotations, such as panoptic segmentation or instance-level change detection.
  • The zero-shot transfer results imply that a generator trained on one segmentation dataset can produce useful SCD training data for a different target dataset, which would make pretraining for change detection more scalable.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct test of the paper's weakest step would be to measure how often completed layouts from sparse SCD annotations agree with dense ground-truth semantic maps, since every downstream image inherits the layout's mistakes; the paper does not report such a measurement.
  • The noise stitching coefficient $\alpha$ is a free parameter that likely controls a trade-off between temporal realism and diversity; sweeping it on a held-out pair of temporally annotated images would map that trade-off and could make the generator more predictable.
  • The text-prompt representation could be transferred to other conditional generation tasks where a target distribution is specified by proportions, for example generating class-balanced synthetic datasets for long-tail segmentation.
  • If the class distribution refinement loss is as effective as claimed, it should also improve the original text-to-image model's prompt adherence for other ratio-like compositional prompts, which is a testable claim beyond SCD.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ChangeDiff, a two-stage diffusion-based data generator for semantic change detection (SCD). In the first stage, a text-to-layout (T2L) model fine-tuned on the target SCD dataset is prompted with multi-class distribution-guided text prompts (MCDG-TP), which encode class names and their area ratios; a class distribution refinement loss is introduced to align cross-attention maps with the desired class ratios and spatial layout. Sparse layouts are 'completed' by prompting the T2L model with amplified class ratios, and time-varying change events are simulated by editing the prompts in three modes (ratio reshaper, class expander, class reducer). In the second stage, a ControlNet-based layout-to-image (L2I) model renders images conditioned on the synthesized layout masks, with noise stitching to enforce temporal continuity. The method is evaluated as data augmentation on SECOND, Landsat-SCD, and HRSCD, and as pretraining for transfer to SECOND using LoveDA; the experiments report consistent gains for most detectors and a strong zero-shot transfer result.

Significance. If the claimed results hold, ChangeDiff addresses a practical bottleneck in remote sensing—the high cost of annotated SCD data—and the controlled zero-shot transfer comparison (equal data volume, same model and iterations) is a useful contribution. The paper also provides the code, which supports reproducibility. However, the central mechanism of sparse layout completion is not validated, and the paper contains an overclaim in the HRSCD results. The core idea is promising but the load-bearing step needs additional evidence before the claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Method, 'Sparse Layout Completion'] The T2L model is fine-tuned on sparse layouts in which only changed areas are labeled (SECOND, Landsat-SCD). To produce a complete reference layout, the paper feeds text with 'amplified class ratios' and random noise into this model, but no amplification rule is given (no formula, range, or algorithm), and the model has never seen complete layouts during training. The cross-attention refinement loss in Eqs. (4)–(5) supervises only the labeled classes; there is no loss term that anchors the previously unlabeled regions. The paper reports no quantitative or qualitative validation of the completed layouts, even though every subsequent changed layout and rendered image pair inherits these masks. Please provide the amplification rule, evaluate layout completion against dense ground truth (e.g., a held-out subset of HRSCD or a manually annotated sample), and report a metric such as mIoU of the completed layout versus the dense reference.
  2. [Experiments, 'Augmentation for HRSCD Dataset' and Table 4] The text states that 'with 5% training samples, the method enhanced SeK and F1 across all models.' This is contradicted by Table 4: BiSRNet's F1 drops from 37.3 to 36.7 (and recall also drops). The aggregate claim may still hold, but the per-model statement is inaccurate and should be corrected or qualified.
  3. [Introduction / Conclusion vs. Experiments, 'Pre-training Transfer'] The paper claims that ChangeDiff works 'without requiring paired images or external datasets' (Abstract, Introduction, Conclusion). However, the pre-training transfer experiments use LoveDA, an external semantic segmentation dataset, as the training source. As stated, the claim is misleading. Please clarify that the 'no external data' property applies only to the in-domain data augmentation setting, and separate this from the transfer setting where external data is deliberately used.
  4. [Method, Eq. (7) and Abstract] The abstract and qualitative claims emphasize 'temporal continuity,' but the only mechanism for this is the noise stitching in Eq. (7), whose coefficient α is a free parameter with no reported value or ablation. Moreover, temporal continuity is never measured quantitatively. Please report the value (or range) of α and provide an evaluation of temporal continuity, for example by measuring the similarity between consecutive synthetic images or the temporal consistency of the synthesized change masks.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Method, Eq. (4)] The description of L_RAT says it uses 'the intersection of class activations in the generated features and the GT,' but the formula counts the fraction of positive entries in A_com and compares it to R_j. This is not an intersection; please clarify the intended computation.
  2. [Tables 2 and 3] The header 'SekFscd' appears to merge two separate metrics (SeK and Fscd). Please split them into distinct columns to make the tables readable.
  3. [Tables 2 and 3] The sentence 'The metric is used for semantic CD, and the metric is used in binary CD' is missing the names of the metrics; please specify which column corresponds to which metric.
  4. [Method, Eq. (2)] For sparse layouts, the class ratio R_j is computed over the entire H×W image even though only changed-region pixels are labeled; unlabeled pixels are not counted in any class. This should be explicitly stated, as it affects the interpretation of the ratios in the MCDG-TP prompts.
  5. [Experiments, Table 6] The table header arrangement for the 'Fine-tuning Transfer 100%' column is confusing because the 'SeK F1' labels appear twice. Please restructure the table so each experimental setting is clearly labeled.
  6. [Method, 'Changing Image Synthesis'] The learning-free projection f_color→mask relies on exact RGB color matching. In practice, diffusion models may produce colors that deviate slightly from the input palette; please report whether any post-processing or color quantization was applied to avoid mismatches between the synthesized layouts and the rendered images.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: ChangeDiff's gains are measured by held-out downstream detector accuracy, and the layout/text conditioning is a trained conditional generator rather than a fitted constant renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

ChangeDiff's central claim is that synthetic semantic-change-detection pairs from its T2L + L2I pipeline improve change detectors and transfer across datasets. This is tested on held-out test splits of SECOND, Landsat-SCD, and HRSCD, with detector metrics (SeK, IoU, F1, etc.) reported for standard CD models with and without the synthetic data. Those metrics are external to the generator: no downstream number is an input to the T2L or L2I training losses. The MCDG-TP text prompt is constructed from the class ratios R_j of the input layout (Eq. 2), and the class distribution refinement loss (Eqs. 3-5) supervises cross-attention to match those same ratios and the layout's spatial masks; this is a reconstruction/alignment objective for a conditional generator, not a prediction of the evaluation result. The 'Sparse Layout Completion' step — 'sparse layouts enable completion by inputting text with amplified class ratios' (Method, Changing Layout Synthesis) — is the weakest link, but it is an unvalidated generalization assumption rather than a circular reduction: the paper reports no metric verifying completed layouts against dense ground truth, and errors there would propagate to every synthetic pair. That is a correctness/robustness gap, not a case where the output equals the input by construction. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain, no imported uniqueness theorem, and the comparison baselines (Changen, ControlNet+Copy-Paste, Self-Pair, IAug) are external methods evaluated under the same protocol. The only notable inconsistency is that the abstract and conclusion claim 'without requiring paired images or external datasets' is weakened by the LoveDA-based pretraining-transfer experiment, which uses an external semantic segmentation dataset; this is an scoping inconsistency, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several unstated heuristics: class-ratio amplification for sparse layout completion, noise stitching coefficient alpha, color-matching projection, and random event-mode sampling. None of these are quantified, ablated, or validated against measured temporal continuity.

free parameters (3)
  • noise stitching coefficient alpha = not reported
    Eq. (7): z_{i+1} = alpha z_i + (1-alpha) z_r. Controls temporal continuity of synthesized image pairs; no value or ablation provided.
  • class ratio amplification factor = not reported
    Used in Sparse Layout Completion to amplify class ratios so the T2L model fills in missing layout; the amplification rule is not specified.
  • event mode sampling distributions = not reported
    Ratio reshaper, class expander, and class reducer randomly change text compositions; the random distributions and ranges are not specified.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The text-to-layout model fine-tuned on sparse SCD labels can complete layouts from amplified class ratios and generate valid changed layouts from edited prompts.
    Method section, Sparse Layout Completion and Time-varying Event Simulation; this is the core sparse-to-dense generalization that the entire pipeline inherits.
  • domain assumption Generated color maps use exactly the training palette, so the learning-free function f_color_to_mask recovers class IDs by simple RGB color matching.
    Method section, Time-varying Event Simulation; if diffusion output colors deviate, the layout masks paired with synthetic images are corrupted.
  • domain assumption Noise interpolation in latent space preserves the semantic content of the reference image while allowing controlled changes.
    Eq. (7) and Changing Image Synthesis; temporal continuity is asserted, not measured.
  • standard math LDM, CLIP text encoder, and ControlNet pre-trained weights provide a sufficiently strong prior for remote sensing layout and image generation after fine-tuning.
    Preliminary and Method sections; these are background tools used as fixed inputs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ChangeDiff: A Multi-Temporal Change Detection Data Generator with Flexible Text Prompts via Diffusion Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2UVQYZ7S

@misc{pith2026241215541,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ChangeDiff: A Multi-Temporal Change Detection Data Generator with Flexible Text Prompts via Diffusion Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2UVQYZ7S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15541}
}
read the original abstract

Data-driven deep learning models have enabled tremendous progress in change detection (CD) with the support of pixel-level annotations. However, collecting diverse data and manually annotating them is costly, laborious, and knowledge-intensive. Existing generative methods for CD data synthesis show competitive potential in addressing this issue but still face the following limitations: 1) difficulty in flexibly controlling change events, 2) dependence on additional data to train the data generators, 3) focus on specific change detection tasks. To this end, this paper focuses on the semantic CD (SCD) task and develops a multi-temporal SCD data generator ChangeDiff by exploring powerful diffusion models. ChangeDiff innovatively generates change data in two steps: first, it uses text prompts and a text-to-layout (T2L) model to create continuous layouts, and then it employs layout-to-image (L2I) to convert these layouts into images. Specifically, we propose multi-class distribution-guided text prompts (MCDG-TP), allowing for layouts to be generated flexibly through controllable classes and their corresponding ratios. Subsequently, to generalize the T2L model to the proposed MCDG-TP, a class distribution refinement loss is further designed as training supervision. %For the former, a multi-classdistribution-guided text prompt (MCDG-TP) is proposed to complement via controllable classes and ratios. To generalize the text-to-image diffusion model to the proposed MCDG-TP, a class distribution refinement loss is designed as training supervision. For the latter, MCDG-TP in three modes is proposed to synthesize new layout masks from various texts. Our generated data shows significant progress in temporal continuity, spatial diversity, and quality realism, empowering change detectors with accuracy and transferability. The code is available at https://github.com/DZhaoXd/ChangeDiff

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15541 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Multi-temporal semantic change synthetic data synthesized by our ChangeDiff, which is trained on the sparsely [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An overview of the proposed ChangeDiff, which consists of two components, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of data augmentation methods on two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visual comparison of different augmentation methods for semantic change detection. a) Training data in the SECOND [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Impact of different pre-train on model performance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Arabi, M. E. A.; Karoui, M. S.; and Djerriri, K. 2018. Optical remote sensing change detection through deep siamese network. In IGARSS 2018-2018 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, 5041--5044. IEEE

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    A.; and Aceituno, J

    Chen, C.-F.; Son, N.-T.; Chang, N.-B.; Chen, C.-R.; Chang, L.-Y.; Valdez, M.; Centeno, G.; Thompson, C. A.; and Aceituno, J. L. 2013. Multi-decadal mangrove forest change detection and prediction in Honduras, Central America, with Landsat imagery and a Markov chain model. Remote Sensing, 5(12): 6408--6426

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Chen, H.; Li, W.; and Shi, Z. 2021. Adversarial instance augmentation for building change detection in remote sensing images. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 60: 1--16

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    C.; Le Saux, B.; Boulch, A.; and Gousseau, Y

    Daudt, R. C.; Le Saux, B.; Boulch, A.; and Gousseau, Y. 2019. Multitask learning for large-scale semantic change detection. Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 187: 102783

    2019

  7. [7]

    Deng, J.; Dong, W.; Socher, R.; Li, L.-J.; Li, K.; and Fei-Fei, L. 2009. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 248--255. Ieee

    2009

  8. [8]

    Ding, L.; Guo, H.; Liu, S.; Mou, L.; Zhang, J.; and Bruzzone, L. 2022. Bi-temporal semantic reasoning for the semantic change detection in HR remote sensing images. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 60: 1--14

    work page 2022

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    Ding, L.; Zhang, J.; Guo, H.; Zhang, K.; Liu, B.; and Bruzzone, L. 2024. Joint spatio-temporal modeling for semantic change detection in remote sensing images. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing

    2024

  2. [10]

    Dong, H.; Ma, W.; Wu, Y.; Gong, M.; and Jiao, L. 2018. Local descriptor learning for change detection in synthetic aperture radar images via convolutional neural networks. IEEE access, 7: 15389--15403

    2018

  3. [11]

    Feranec, J.; Hazeu, G.; Christensen, S.; and Jaffrain, G. 2007. Corine land cover change detection in Europe (case studies of the Netherlands and Slovakia). Land use policy, 24(1): 234--247

    2007

  4. [12]

    Kadhim, N.; Mourshed, M.; and Bray, M. 2016. Advances in remote sensing applications for urban sustainability. Euro-Mediterranean Journal for Environmental Integration, 1(1): 1--22

    2016

  5. [13]

    Khanna, S.; Liu, P.; Zhou, L.; Meng, C.; Rombach, R.; Burke, M.; Lobell, D.; and Ermon, S. 2023. Diffusionsat: A generative foundation model for satellite imagery. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.03606

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Lei, Y.; Liu, X.; Shi, J.; Lei, C.; and Wang, J. 2019. Multiscale superpixel segmentation with deep features for change detection. Ieee Access, 7: 36600--36616

    2019

  7. [15]

    Li, Z.; Tang, C.; Liu, X.; Zhang, W.; Dou, J.; Wang, L.; and Zomaya, A. Y. 2023. Lightweight remote sensing change detection with progressive feature aggregation and supervised attention. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 61: 1--12

    2023

  8. [16]

    Podell, D.; English, Z.; Lacey, K.; Blattmann, A.; Dockhorn, T.; M \"u ller, J.; Penna, J.; and Rombach, R. 2023. Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01952

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    W.; Hallacy, C.; Ramesh, A.; Goh, G.; Agarwal, S.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; Mishkin, P.; Clark, J.; et al

    Radford, A.; Kim, J. W.; Hallacy, C.; Ramesh, A.; Goh, G.; Agarwal, S.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; Mishkin, P.; Clark, J.; et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International conference on machine learning, 8748--8763. PMLR

    2021

  10. [18]

    Ramesh, A.; Dhariwal, P.; Nichol, A.; Chu, C.; and Chen, M. 2022. Hierarchical text-conditional image generation with clip latents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.06125, 1(2): 3

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Rombach, R.; Blattmann, A.; Lorenz, D.; Esser, P.; and Ommer, B. 2022. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 10684--10695

    2022

  12. [20]

    Ronneberger, O.; Fischer, P.; and Brox, T. 2015. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention--MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, proceedings, part II...

    2015

  13. [21]

    Seo, M.; Lee, H.; Jeon, Y.; and Seo, J. 2023. Self-pair: Synthesizing changes from single source for object change detection in remote sensing imagery. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, 6374--6383

    2023

  14. [22]

    Wang, J.; Zheng, Z.; Ma, A.; Lu, X.; and Zhong, Y. 2021. LoveDA: A remote sensing land-cover dataset for domain adaptive semantic segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.08733

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Yang, K.; Xia, G.-S.; Liu, Z.; Du, B.; Yang, W.; Pelillo, M.; and Zhang, L. 2021. Asymmetric siamese networks for semantic change detection in aerial images. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 60: 1--18

    2021

  16. [24]

    Yuan, P.; Zhao, Q.; Zhao, X.; Wang, X.; Long, X.; and Zheng, Y. 2022. A transformer-based Siamese network and an open optical dataset for semantic change detection of remote sensing images. International Journal of Digital Earth, 15(1): 1506--1525

    2022

  17. [25]

    Zhang, L. e. a. 2023. Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 3836--3847

    2023

  18. [26]

    Zheng, Z.; Ermon, S.; Kim, D.; Zhang, L.; and Zhong, Y. 2024. Changen2: Multi-Temporal Remote Sensing Generative Change Foundation Model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.17998

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Zheng, Z.; Ma, A.; Zhang, L.; and Zhong, Y. 2021. Change is everywhere: Single-temporal supervised object change detection in remote sensing imagery. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 15193--15202

    2021

  20. [28]

    Zheng, Z.; Tian, S.; Ma, A.; Zhang, L.; and Zhong, Y. 2023. Scalable multi-temporal remote sensing change data generation via simulating stochastic change process. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 21818--21827

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.