Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 31 references

Adaptively Augmented Consistency Learning: A Semi-supervised Segmentation Framework for Remote Sensing

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that its Adaptively Augmented Consistency Learning (AACL) framework, combining Uniform Strength Augmentation and Adaptive CutMix, improves semi-supervised segmentation of remote sensing images by up to 2% in mean IoU and…

desk verdict A plausible incremental SSL framework whose SOTA claim rests on test-set tuning of the augmentation count k, plus a missing multi-seed check. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09344 v1 pith:RHAM7RTJ submitted 2024-11-14 cs.CV

Hui Ye , Haodong Chen , Xiaoming Chen , Vera Chung This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords semi-supervisedlearningremotesensingsemanticsegmentationconsistencyregularizationdataaugmentationCutMixlabelscarcityentropyfiltering
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

The paper tries to show that a semi-supervised segmentation framework tailored to remote sensing imagery can match or beat state-of-the-art results while using only a fraction of labeled pixels. It claims that two new augmentation mechanisms—Uniform Strength Augmentation, which applies varied augmentations at a fixed strength, and Adaptive CutMix, which switches between unlabeled-unlabeled and labeled-unlabeled mixing as the model matures—extract enough signal from unlabeled images to raise mean IoU by up to 2% overall and up to 20% in rare categories like wetland and car. If true, this would make high-resolution Earth-observation mapping more feasible in settings where pixel-level annotation is too costly. The framework is built on consistency regularization with entropy filtering of unreliable predictions.

What carries the argument

Uniform Strength Augmentation (USAug) randomly selects $k$ of ten standard image augmentations and applies them in random order while keeping the perturbation strength constant, creating varied but comparable strong views of unlabeled images. Adaptive CutMix (AdaCM) computes a trigger probability $\alpha$ from the model's mean confidence and entropy, and uses it to choose whether CutMix blends two unlabeled images or one labeled and one unlabeled image, so early training favors stable mixing with labels and later training favors exploratory unlabeled mixing. A shared mask aligns the weak and strong views, and an entropy threshold $\tau$ suppresses unreliable pixels in the consistency loss.

What would settle it

Run AACL and WSCL on the same three datasets under the same partition protocol for at least five random seeds and several independent selections of the labeled subset; if the mean mIoU difference does not stay above the standard deviation across runs, the claimed improvement does not reproduce.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

AACL is a semi-supervised segmentation framework that enhances remote sensing image segmentation under limited labeled data. It uses two components: USAug randomly selects k standard augmentations (contrast, equalize, blur, brightness, saturation, sharpness, posterize, solarize, hue, grayscale) and applies them in random order with consistent strength, and AdaCM computes a trigger probability from the model's mean confidence and entropy to decide whether CutMix blends two unlabeled images or one labeled and one unlabeled image, with the choice shifting as training progresses. On DFC22, iSAID, and Vaihingen, the paper reports mIoU gains over the previous SOTA (WSCL) of 0.66% and 0.35%, 0.82% and 0.09%, and 2.35% and 2.18% under 1/8 and 1/4 labeled partitions respectively, with category-level gains up to 20.17% (Wetland) and 11.92% (Car).

Load-bearing premise

The paper's advantage over the previous best method is measured with one training run per dataset and one unspecified selection of labeled images, so the reported improvements of 0.09 to 2.35 percentage points could fall within normal rerun noise.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If AACL holds, remote sensing segmentation models can be trained with 1/8 or 1/4 of the labeled data and still substantially outperform a supervised-only baseline on the same labels, with reported gains of 11.69% to 20.51% mIoU across datasets.
  • The framework's largest gains appear on rare or hard categories such as Wetland, Car, Ship, and Roundabout, so applications that care about these classes would benefit most from the method.
  • The ablation study reports that USAug and AdaCM each add about 0.8% mIoU individually and 1.45% together on Vaihingen, suggesting the two mechanisms are roughly additive.
  • The optimal number of augmentations $k$ varies by dataset (3 for DFC22, 8 for iSAID and Vaihingen), meaning augmentation strength should be tuned per dataset rather than fixed globally.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The entropy-gated consistency loss and the adaptive mixing rule may transfer to other dense prediction tasks with scarce labels, such as medical image segmentation or land-cover change detection, though the paper does not test these settings.
  • The per-dataset optimal $k$ suggests a simple extension: schedule $k$ over the course of training instead of fixing it, which could remove the need for a separate validation search.
  • The reported improvements over WSCL are small enough (0.09 to 2.35 percentage points) that a multi-seed evaluation could change the ranking; until that is done, the practical advantage over the previous method is not established beyond the paper's tables.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Adaptively Augmented Consistency Learning (AACL), a semi-supervised segmentation framework for remote sensing imagery. AACL combines a supervised loss with a consistency loss between weakly and strongly augmented unlabeled images, using two main components: Uniform Strength Augmentation (USAug), which applies a random subset of k strong augmentations in random order, and Adaptive CutMix (AdaCM), which switches between CutMix of two unlabeled images and CutMix of a labeled and an unlabeled image based on a trigger probability derived from model confidence. The method is evaluated on DFC22, iSAID, and Vaihingen with Deeplabv3+ and compared against several semi-supervised segmentation baselines. The reported results claim mIoU improvements over the previous state of the art (WSCL) of 0.66% and 0.35% on DFC22, 0.82% and 0.09% on iSAID, and 2.35% and 2.18% on Vaihingen under 1/8 and 1/4 labeled partitions, plus larger gains in selected categories. The paper also includes ablations showing the individual contributions of USAug and AdaCM on Vaihingen 1/4.

Significance. If the reported numbers are reliable, AACL is a modest but useful contribution to semi-supervised segmentation for remote sensing, with a reasonable combination of randomized strong augmentation and adaptive CutMix. The paper is clearly written, the experimental setup is described in enough detail to reproduce the main pipeline, and the ablation study identifies the individual contributions of the two components. However, the empirical claim of state-of-the-art performance is currently undermined by two experimental weaknesses: hyperparameter k is chosen on the test partitions, and all results are single-run without variance estimates. These are fixable with appropriate re-running, and the methodological ideas are worth further testing, but the evidence presented here does not yet establish that AACL outperforms prior work.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.3, Table 5] The augmentation count k is selected by evaluating test mIoU on the same partitions that are subsequently used for the final results in Tables 1–3. Specifically, Table 5 reports test mIoU for k = 1..10 on DFC22 1/4, iSAID 300, and Vaihingen 1/4, and the text then sets k = 3 for DFC22 and k = 8 for iSAID and Vaihingen. Because these are the same test partitions that produce the headline numbers, the reported AACL results are effectively maxima over the k sweep, while the WSCL baselines are reported without any equivalent test-set tuning. This selection bias alone could account for a large part of the claimed margins (e.g., 2.18% on Vaihingen 1/4). The authors should instead select k on a held-out validation split and report the corresponding test results, or report results across the full range of k to show that the conclusion is not an artifact of choosing the best test value.
  2. [Section 4.1, Tables 1–3] All experiments are performed on a single labeled/unlabeled partition and a single training run: the text states 'Only single data partition is applied for fair comparison with previous SOTA framework [16]', and no error bars, standard deviations, or multiple seeds are reported anywhere in the paper. For modern segmentation models, differences of 0.09–2.35% mIoU are typically within run-to-run variation, so the central claim that AACL outperforms WSCL is not statistically supported. To substantiate the claim, the authors should run each configuration with at least three random seeds (and ideally also vary the labeled subset selection) and report mean and standard deviation.
  3. [Section 3.4, Eq. (9)] The definition of the trigger probability α in Eq. (9) is unclear and likely contains a typo: the expression includes '1 - -' (a double negative) and the resulting value is not shown to lie in [0,1], which a probability must. Moreover, the paper asserts that this quantity measures model maturity, but no justification is given for why the average of max softmax probability times the bracketed term is a valid proxy for confidence suitable for switching between the two CutMix modes. Please provide a corrected, well-defined formula and either a derivation or a reference that explains the choice.
  4. [Section 4.2, Tables 1 and 2] The narrative focuses on categories with large gains (e.g., Wetland on DFC22, Ship and Car), while several other categories degrade substantially relative to WSCL (e.g., DFC22 1/8 Industrial: WSCL 5.50 vs AACL 1.11; iSAID 300 Storage Tank: 86.56 vs 75.54; iSAID 100 Helicopter: 22.89 vs 21.49). A fair central claim about overall performance should either discuss these per-class trade-offs or be explicitly limited to mIoU; otherwise the selective reporting gives a misleading impression of consistent improvement.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4.2] There are several typos that should be corrected: 'condictions' in the Abstract, 'enhances' in the Abstract (grammatical agreement), and 'demostrating' in Section 4.2 (should be 'demonstrating').
  2. [Eq. (7)] The indicator function is defined as I{Hi ≤ τ} = 0 if Hi ≥ τ and 1 if Hi < τ, which makes the condition effectively strict at equality; the text says 'only data with entropy lower than the threshold τ contributes', which is consistent, but the notation I{Hi ≤ τ} conflicts with the actual strict inequality and should be aligned.
  3. [Tables 1 and 2] Several entries in the baseline rows are 'NAN' (e.g., ST++ on DFC22, SS-Cont on iSAID). The paper does not state how the reported mIoU is computed in the presence of missing class scores, which affects comparability. Please clarify the aggregation rule or report per-class values consistently.
  4. [References] References [24] and [25] are the same paper (Xin et al., Sensors, 2024); the duplicate should be removed and the citation in Sections 2.2 and 3.3 harmonized.
  5. [Section 4.3, Table 4] The component ablation is only conducted on Vaihingen 1/4; given that the interaction between USAug and AdaCM might differ across datasets (the k sweep in Table 5 shows large dataset-dependent variation), it would be informative to include at least one additional dataset in the ablation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: AACL is an empirical framework evaluated against external benchmarks; its consistency objective is standard self-training and no claimed result is defined in terms of itself.

full rationale

The paper makes no formal derivation whose conclusion is equivalent to its premises. The consistency loss Lcon = -1/N * sum(f(xw) log f(xs)) uses the model's own soft predictions, which is the standard self-training/consistency-regularization mechanism, and it is not presented as a prediction derived from first principles. Hyperparameters such as tau and lambda_con are taken from prior work [16,31], not from the authors' own earlier papers, so there is no load-bearing self-citation. The reported mIoU gains are comparisons against published baselines on DFC22, iSAID, and Vaihingen. One validity concern is that Section 4.3's Table 5 sweeps the augmentation count k on the test partitions used in Tables 1-3; this is a test-set selection issue that could inflate the reported margins, but it is not circularity in the sense of a result reducing to its own input by construction. No fitted constant is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the same authors. Accordingly the circularity score is 0.

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

The framework depends on several hyperparameters and unstated assumptions about remote sensing image semantics. The most problematic free parameter is k, chosen by evaluating on the same test partitions used for final results (Table 5). The entropy-reliability axiom and the ad hoc alpha formula in Eq. (9) are load-bearing but only weakly justified.

free parameters (3)
  • k (USAug augmentation count) = 3 for DFC22, 8 for iSAID, 8 for Vaihingen
    Number of strong augmentations applied in USAug; selected per dataset based on test-set mIoU (Table 5), which is post-hoc selection on the evaluation set.
  • tau (entropy threshold) = 20 (DFC22, iSAID), 80 (Vaihingen)
    Threshold in Eq. (6) to mask unreliable pseudo-label pixels; adjusted per dataset and inherited from prior work [16].
  • lambda_con (consistency loss weight) = 1
    Scaling factor in Eq. (1); adopted from [16,31] with the claim that it has minimal impact. It is a fixed hyperparameter, not fitted here.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The strong augmentations from [16,11,25] (contrast, equalize, blur, brightness, saturation, sharpness, posterize, solarize, hue, grayscale) preserve the semantic label structure of remote sensing images.
    Invoked in Section 3.3 where USAug is defined. If these augmentations distort label semantics, the consistency loss in Eq. (6) trains on false targets.
  • domain assumption Entropy of the weakly-augmented prediction is a reliable indicator of prediction correctness.
    Used in Eq. (6) to gate pixels into the consistency loss. This is the standard confidence heuristic in self-training but is assumed without validation for remote sensing imagery.
  • ad hoc to paper The trigger probability alpha in Eq. (9) measures model maturity appropriately.
    Alpha is defined as the mean over pixels of max softmax times (1 - normalized entropy). No derivation or empirical justification is provided, and the equation appears to contain a typo.
  • domain assumption The single data partition for each dataset is representative and fixed as in prior work; no repeated runs are performed.
    All comparisons in Section 4.2 use one train/test split per dataset, so reported differences are single-sample estimates without variance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Adaptively Augmented Consistency Learning: A Semi-supervised Segmentation Framework for Remote Sensing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RHAM7RTJ

@misc{pith2026241109344,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Adaptively Augmented Consistency Learning: A Semi-supervised Segmentation Framework for Remote Sensing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RHAM7RTJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09344}
}
read the original abstract

Remote sensing (RS) involves the acquisition of data about objects or areas from a distance, primarily to monitor environmental changes, manage resources, and support planning and disaster response. A significant challenge in RS segmentation is the scarcity of high-quality labeled images due to the diversity and complexity of RS image, which makes pixel-level annotation difficult and hinders the development of effective supervised segmentation algorithms. To solve this problem, we propose Adaptively Augmented Consistency Learning (AACL), a semi-supervised segmentation framework designed to enhances RS segmentation accuracy under condictions of limited labeled data. AACL extracts additional information embedded in unlabeled images through the use of Uniform Strength Augmentation (USAug) and Adaptive Cut-Mix (AdaCM). Evaluations across various RS datasets demonstrate that AACL achieves competitive performance in semi-supervised segmentation, showing up to a 20% improvement in specific categories and 2% increase in overall performance compared to state-of-the-art frameworks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09344 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of natural image and remote sensing image. The image on the left side is from Pascal VOC dataset [4], the image on the right side is from Potsdam dataset. In AACL, two advanced methods, Uniform Strength Augmentation (USAug) and Adaptive CutMix (AdaCM), contribute to the performance improvement. USAug applies consistent but varied strong augmentation to unlabeled images, introducing discrepancies and enric… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview structure of AACL. "Aw" and "As" indicate the weak augmentation and the "USAug" module, respectively. 3.2 Adaptively Augmented Consistency Learning (AACL) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visualization of strong augmentation applied in USAug. The image on the left is the original representation, the images on the right are the processed images under different strong augmentation. (a) Contrast. (b) Equalize. (c) Blur. (d) Brightness. (e) Saturation. (f) Sharpness. (g) Posterize. (h) Solarize. (i) Hue. (j) Grayscale. consistent strength. USAug selects the commonly used strong augmentations from previou… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The structure of AdaCM module. I u , I u,aux and I l,aux are unlabeled image, auxiliary unlabeled image and auxiliary labeled image, respectively. "r" is the random threshold in AdaCM, "α" is the trigger probability from the weakly augmented pre￾diction. The implementa…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [16]

    IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing (2023)

    Lu, X., Jiao, L., Li, L., Liu, F., Liu, X., Yang, S., Feng, Z., Chen, P.: Weak-to-strong consistency learning for semisupervised image segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    In: 2020 Inter- national joint conference on neural networks (IJCNN)

    Arazo, E., Ortego, D., Albert, P., O’Connor, N.E., McGuinness, K.: Pseudo- labeling and confirmation bias in deep semi-supervised learning. In: 2020 Inter- national joint conference on neural networks (IJCNN). pp. 1–8. IEEE (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [2]

    In: Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV)

    Chen, L.C., Zhu, Y., Papandreou, G., Schroff, F., Adam, H.: Encoder-decoder with atrous separable convolution for semantic image segmentation. In: Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV). pp. 801–818 (2018)

    2018

  4. [3]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Chen, X., Yuan, Y., Zeng, G., Wang, J.: Semi-supervised semantic segmentation with cross pseudo supervision. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 2613–2622 (2021)

    2021

  5. [4]

    Everingham, M., Eslami, S.A., Van Gool, L., Williams, C.K., Winn, J., Zisserman, A.:Thepascalvisualobjectclasseschallenge:Aretrospective.Internationaljournal of computer vision111, 98–136 (2015)

    2015

  6. [5]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.01916 (2019)

    French, G., Laine, S., Aila, T., Mackiewicz, M., Finlayson, G.: Semi-supervised semantic segmentation needs strong, varied perturbations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.01916 (2019)

    arXiv 2019

  7. [6]

    French, G., Laine, S., Aila, T., Mackiewicz, M., Finlayson, G.: Semi-supervised semantic segmentation needs strong, varied perturbations (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [7]

    IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 69(11), 9028–9036 (2020) Title Suppressed Due to Excessive Length 13

    Gu, K., Zhang, Y., Qiao, J.: Random forest ensemble for river turbidity measure- ment from space remote sensing data. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 69(11), 9028–9036 (2020) Title Suppressed Due to Excessive Length 13

    work page 2020

Show all 31 references
  1. [8]

    IEEE geoscience and remote sensing magazine10(1), 334–337 (2022)

    Hänsch, R., Persello, C., Vivone, G., Navarro, J.C., Boulch, A., Lefevre, S., Saux, B.: The 2022 ieee grss data fusion contest: Semisupervised learning [technical com- mittees]. IEEE geoscience and remote sensing magazine10(1), 334–337 (2022)

    2022

  2. [9]

    He,K.,Zhang,X.,Ren,S.,Sun,J.:Deepresiduallearningforimagerecognition.In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 770–778 (2016)

    2016

  3. [10]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

    He, R., Yang, J., Qi, X.: Re-distributing biased pseudo labels for semi-supervised semantic segmentation: A baseline investigation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 6930–6940 (2021)

    2021

  4. [11]

    IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing61, 1–16 (2023)

    Huang, W., Shi, Y., Xiong, Z., Zhu, X.X.: Adaptmatch: Adaptive matching for semisupervised binary segmentation of remote sensing images. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing61, 1–16 (2023)

    2023

  5. [12]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

    Kirillov, A., Mintun, E., Ravi, N., Mao, H., Rolland, C., Gustafson, L., Xiao, T., Whitehead, S., Berg, A.C., Lo, W.Y., et al.: Segment anything. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 4015–4026 (2023)

    2023

  6. [13]

    International Journal of Geographical Information Science31(8), 1675–1696 (2017)

    Liu, X., He, J., Yao, Y., Zhang, J., Liang, H., Wang, H., Hong, Y.: Classifying urban land use by integrating remote sensing and social media data. International Journal of Geographical Information Science31(8), 1675–1696 (2017)

    2017

  7. [14]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Liu, Y., Tian, Y., Chen, Y., Liu, F., Belagiannis, V., Carneiro, G.: Perturbed and strict mean teachers for semi-supervised semantic segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 4258–4267 (2022)

    2022

  8. [15]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Long, J., Shelhamer, E., Darrell, T.: Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 3431–3440 (2015)

    2015

  9. [17]

    IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 60, 1–16 (2022)

    Lu, X., Jiao, L., Liu, F., Yang, S., Liu, X., Feng, Z., Li, L., Chen, P.: Simple and efficient: A semisupervised learning framework for remote sensing image semantic segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 60, 1–16 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    In: 2018 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA)

    Milioto, A., Lottes, P., Stachniss, C.: Real-time semantic segmentation of crop and weed for precision agriculture robots leveraging background knowledge in cnns. In: 2018 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). pp. 2229–2235. IEEE (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision

    Olsson, V., Tranheden, W., Pinto, J., Svensson, L.: Classmix: Segmentation-based data augmentation for semi-supervised learning. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision. pp. 1369–1378 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    International Journal of Remote Sensing40(14), 5475–5496 (2019)

    Shimabukuro, Y.E., Arai, E., Duarte, V., Jorge, A., Santos, E.G.d., Gasparini, K.A.C., Dutra, A.C.: Monitoring deforestation and forest degradation using multi- temporal fraction images derived from landsat sensor data in the brazilian amazon. International Journal of Remote S...

    2019

  13. [21]

    In: 2022 19th Conference on Robots and Vision (CRV)

    Teh, E.W., DeVries, T., Duke, B., Jiang, R., Aarabi, P., Taylor, G.W.: The gist and rist of iterative self-training for semi-supervised segmentation. In: 2022 19th Conference on Robots and Vision (CRV). pp. 58–66. IEEE (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Wang, Y., Wang, H., Shen, Y., Fei, J., Li, W., Jin, G., Wu, L., Zhao, R., Le, X.: Semi-supervised semantic segmentation using unreliable pseudo-labels. In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 4248–4257 (2022) 14 H. Ye et al

    2022

  15. [23]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops

    Waqas Zamir, S., Arora, A., Gupta, A., Khan, S., Sun, G., Shahbaz Khan, F., Zhu, F., Shao, L., Xia, G.S., Bai, X.: isaid: A large-scale dataset for instance segmentation in aerial images. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Wor...

    2019

  16. [25]

    Sensors24(3), 730 (2024)

    Xin, Y., Fan, Z., Qi, X., Geng, Y., Li, X.: Enhancing semi-supervised semantic segmentation of remote sensing images via feature perturbation-based consistency regularization methods. Sensors24(3), 730 (2024)

    2024

  17. [26]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Yang, L., Qi, L., Feng, L., Zhang, W., Shi, Y.: Revisiting weak-to-strong consis- tency in semi-supervised semantic segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 7236–7246 (2023)

    2023

  18. [27]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Yang, L., Zhuo, W., Qi, L., Shi, Y., Gao, Y.: St++: Make self-training work bet- ter for semi-supervised semantic segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 4268–4277 (2022)

    2022

  19. [28]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

    Yuan, J., Liu, Y., Shen, C., Wang, Z., Li, H.: A simple baseline for semi-supervised semantic segmentation with strong data augmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 8229–8238 (2021)

    2021

  20. [29]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision

    Yun, S., Han, D., Oh, S.J., Chun, S., Choe, J., Yoo, Y.: Cutmix: Regularization strategy to train strong classifiers with localizable features. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. pp. 6023–6032 (2019)

    2019

  21. [30]

    IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing (2023)

    Zhang, X., Huang, X., Li, J.: Joint self-training and rebalanced consistency learn- ing for semi-supervised change detection. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing (2023)

    2023

  22. [31]

    In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Zhao, Z., Yang, L., Long, S., Pi, J., Zhou, L., Wang, J.: Augmentation matters: A simple-yet-effective approach to semi-supervised semantic segmentation. In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 11350–11359 (2023)

    2023

  23. [32]

    IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence46(3), 1589–1602 (2021)

    Zhu, Y., Zhang, Z., Wu, C., Zhang, Z., He, T., Zhang, H., Manmatha, R., Li, M., Smola, A.: Improving semantic segmentation via efficient self-training. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence46(3), 1589–1602 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.