Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 61 references

Adapting Vision Foundation Models for Robust Cloud Segmentation in Remote Sensing Images

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 Cloud-Adapter freezes a DINOv2 backbone and adds 1.82M trainable parameters through a spatial-perception plus cross-attention adapter, reporting state-of-the-art cloud segmentation on all six benchmark subsets tested.

desk verdict Solid adapter-for-cloud-segmentation study with extensive benchmarks, but the headline 0.6% parameter-efficiency claim omits the trained segmentation head. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13127 v2 pith:VKVFESNW submitted 2024-11-20 cs.CV

Xuechao Zou , Shun Zhang , Kai Li , Shiying Wang , Junliang Xing , Lei Jin , Congyan Lang , Pin Tao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords cloudsegmentationremotesensingvisionfoundationmodelsparameter-efficientfine-tuningcross-attentionadapterDINOv2low-rankadaptationmulti-scalespatialcontext
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 frozen, general-purpose vision foundation model can be turned into a strong cloud segmenter with a small trainable add-on. Cloud-Adapter keeps DINOv2 Large frozen and attaches a spatial perception module plus low-rank cross-attention adapting modules, 1.82M trainable parameters reported as 0.6% of the backbone. Across six benchmark subsets from Sentinel-2, Landsat 8, Gaofen-1/2, and Google Earth imagery, the method reports the best mIoU, mAcc, aAcc, and mDice in every comparison, including 89.05 mIoU on HRC WHU versus 83.44 for the previous best. If these results hold, cloud detection can inherit general visual knowledge without retraining a large backbone. The authors also state that the method inherits the foundation model's deployment cost and still leaves a substantial accuracy gap on the hardest dataset, L8 Biome.

What carries the argument

The adapting module is the mechanism that carries the argument: each frozen transformer layer provides queries while the aggregated multi-scale spatial context provides keys and values, followed by a low-rank MLP and a residual addition. The spatial perception module, built from two depthwise-separable-convolution stem layers, four stride-2 ConvNet blocks, and a parameter-free adaptive-average-pooling aggregator, supplies the dense multi-scale cloud context that lets the frozen backbone adapt to satellite imagery without any weight updates.

What would settle it

Count every trainable parameter in the full pipeline, including the segmentation head, and compare the total with the compared methods; if the total is not far smaller, the paper's parameter-efficiency claim is refuted. A second check is to retrain with a randomly initialized backbone of the same size; if the reported gains vanish, the frozen foundation model is doing the work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a frozen DINOv2 Large backbone, modulated by (i) a spatial perception module that extracts multi-scale convolutional features and pools them into a dense context and (ii) adapting modules that use cross-attention with low-rank MLP projections to inject that context into every transformer layer, reaches state of the art on cloud segmentation. The paper reports consistent improvements over prior methods on all six tested subsets, with particularly large gains in difficult classes such as thin clouds and cloud shadows on CloudSEN12 High and on the high-resolution HRC WHU benchmark.

Load-bearing premise

The efficiency claim rests on counting only the extra modules and not the part of the network that produces the final cloud maps; include that part, and the trained share of the model is much larger than 0.6%.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On HRC WHU, Cloud-Adapter reports 89.05 mIoU against 83.44 for the prior best method, and it reports the highest mIoU, mAcc, aAcc, and mDice on GF1, GF2, CloudSEN12 L1C, CloudSEN12 L2A, and L8 Biome as well.
  • The hardest four-class categories improve substantially: on CloudSEN12 High L1C, thin-cloud IoU rises to 56.15 and cloud-shadow IoU to 65.93, above the previous bests.
  • The frozen-backbone design transfers across sensor families and resolutions, from 10 m Sentinel-2 to 30 m Landsat 8 to 0.5-15 m Google Earth imagery, without unfreezing the backbone.
  • The trainable adapter is only 1.82M parameters according to the paper's accounting, and the ablations show each added component, stem, ConvNet blocks, aggregator, and adapting module, contributes a positive mIoU increment.
  • The paper's own limitations note that the method depends heavily on the VFM, that the large frozen backbone hinders edge-device deployment, and that L8 Biome still shows a substantial gap to manual masks at 57.53 mIoU.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The reported 0.6% figure counts only the adapter and spatial-perception modules; including the trainable Mask2Former head that produces the final masks would put the total trainable parameters far above 1.82M, so the efficiency advantage over fully fine-tuned models is smaller than the headline suggests.
  • The aggregate L8 Biome lead is not uniform across scenes: the per-land-cover table shows Cloud-Adapter trailing DBNet on Grass/Crops and Urban, so the dataset-level robustness claim is driven largely by Snow/Ice and Shrubland gains.
  • The same frozen-backbone-plus-cross-attention recipe could apply to other dense remote-sensing tasks such as snow cover mapping, land cover segmentation, or burn scar detection, since the spatial perception module injects task-local context without touching the VFM weights.
  • An ablation with a randomly initialized backbone of the same size would separate how much of the gain comes from DINOv2's pretrained features versus from the adapter's spatial context; the paper only compares different pretrained backbones.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Cloud-Adapter, a parameter-efficient fine-tuning approach for cloud segmentation in remote sensing images. A vision foundation model (DINOv2-Large or SAM variants) is frozen; a lightweight spatial perception module (stem, several ConvNet blocks, and a parameter-free aggregator) extracts multi-scale context, and cross-attention adapting modules with low-rank MLP projections modulate the frozen transformer layers. The segmentation head is Mask2Former. Experiments report state-of-the-art mIoU, mAcc, aAcc, and mDice on six subsets of four datasets (HRC WHU, GF12MS WHU GF1/GF2, CloudSEN12 High L1C/L2A, L8 Biome), with a claimed 0.6% trainable parameter ratio relative to the backbone, and the code and checkpoints are released.

Significance. The empirical scope is a strength: the method is evaluated across multiple satellite sources, spatial resolutions, processing levels, and annotation granularities, and the released code and checkpoints support reproducibility. If the reported gains are robust, Cloud-Adapter is a practically useful instantiation of adapter-based VFM fine-tuning for cloud segmentation. However, the headline parameter-efficiency claim is not supported by the paper's own accounting, and some evaluation claims are stronger than the tables justify. The architectural contribution is incremental relative to existing adapters such as ViT-Adapter and SAM-Adapter, but the systematic comparison and multi-dataset evidence are valuable.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV-B, Tables II and VI] The paper's central efficiency claim, expressed in the abstract and contributions as 'only 0.6% of the trainable parameters of the frozen backbone' (1.82M for DINOv2-Large), counts only the spatial perception and adapting modules and excludes the trainable Mask2Former head. Section IV-B.1 states that the segmentation head is Mask2Former, and Table VI reports 0.00M parameters for the no-adapter baseline even though that baseline still trains the head. Because a Mask2Former head for dense prediction contains a substantial number of parameters, the true total trainable parameter count is far larger than 1.82M and the true ratio to the backbone is far above 0.6%. Please either report total trainable parameters including the head, or explicitly restrict the parameter-efficiency claim to the adapter modules and adjust the abstract and conclusion accordingly.
  2. [Section IV-A.2, Tables XII and XIII] The L8 Biome dataset is cropped and split into 6:2:2 by the authors, but the paper does not specify how each baseline method was trained or evaluated on this custom split. Without a common training protocol (optimizer, iterations, patch size, preprocessing, validation selection) or a reference to the source of the baseline numbers, the comparisons in Tables XII and XIII are not verifiable and may not be controlled. Please document the protocol for all methods, or clearly state the provenance of each baseline result.
  3. [Section IV.D.2.a, Table XIII] The text claims Cloud-Adapter 'consistently outperforms competitors such as DBNet and UNetMobv2 across diverse land scenes,' but Table XIII shows DBNet with higher mIoU on Grass/Crops (59.08 vs 41.60), Urban (59.68 vs 51.76), and Water (52.42 vs 46.43), and higher aAcc on Grass/Crops, Urban, Barren, Forest, and Water. The claim should be limited to the overall L8 Biome metrics, and the per-scene results should be discussed honestly, since they show the method is not uniformly better across land cover types.
  4. [Tables VII-XI] No variance or repeated-run statistics are reported, and several SOTA margins are very small (e.g., GF1 mIoU 92.55 vs 92.42 and aAcc 98.92 vs 98.91 in Table VIII). The main 'consistently achieves SOTA' claim should either be accompanied by standard deviations across multiple seeds or by a statistical test, or be softened to 'competitive with' where margins are within expected run-to-run variation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section I] The phrase '0.6% of the trainable parameters of the frozen backbone' is internally inconsistent because a frozen backbone has no trainable parameters; please rephrase as '0.6% of the backbone parameter count.'
  2. [Table VI] The stem parameter count '3e-4M' (300 parameters) appears surprisingly small for two depthwise-separable convolutions with a channel mapping; please verify and report the exact stem parameter count.
  3. [Section IV.C.1] Training time and GPU memory are only given in the text for DINOv2-Large and SAM-Huge; consider adding these values to Table II for all variants.
  4. [Table XIII] It would help to mark the best per-scene result in bold and to indicate the number of scenes won or lost by Cloud-Adapter, rather than only reporting overall metrics.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: benchmark scores are independently measured; the only self-citation is a non-load-bearing design choice.

full rationale

Cloud-Adapter's central claims are empirical: the mIoU, mAcc, aAcc, and mDice values in Tables VII-XIII are measured on held-out test splits of HRC WHU, GF12MS WHU, CloudSEN12 High, and L8 Biome, not derived from equations whose inputs already contain those scores. Hyperparameter choices (context dimension 64, rank 16, interaction frequency 24) are selected on the CloudSEN12 High L1C validation set and then transferred to other datasets; this is standard model selection, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The only self-reference is the Pure-ConvNet block taken from the authors' prior PMAA paper [55] for the spatial perception module; this is a component choice, and the ablation in Table III compares it against an independent Transformer-Like design, so the target SOTA results are not injected by the citation. The paper's 0.6% parameter-efficiency statement is an accounting concern rather than a circularity: Section IV-B states that the trainable segmentation head is Mask2Former, and Table VI reports 0.00M parameters for the no-adapter baseline even though that baseline still trains the head, so the reported 1.82M appears to exclude the head. This weakens the parameter-efficiency claim as written, but it does not make any segmentation result equivalent to an input by construction. No circular step can be exhibited, so the circularity score is 0.

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

The central claim (SOTA with 0.6% parameters) depends on hyperparameters chosen by ablation on one dataset and on an accounting choice that excludes the segmentation head. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Context dimension d = 64
    Selected via ablation on CloudSEN12 High L1C (Fig. 4); dimension 64 gives best mIoU 74.18 with 1.82M parameters.
  • Low-rank rank r = 16
    Selected via ablation (Fig. 5); rank 16 peaks at 74.18 mIoU; rank 32 degrades.
  • Interaction frequency N = 24
    Selected via ablation (Table V); N=24 interacts at every layer and yields best results.
  • Number of ConvNet blocks k = 4
    Set by default, not ablated; controls the number of multi-scale context levels.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Frozen VFM features contain transferable representations for cloud segmentation
    The method relies on DINOv2 features as a base; Table VI baseline (frozen VFM plus head) achieves 73.10 mIoU, supporting this but not guaranteeing optimality.
  • domain assumption Mask2Former head is an appropriate decoder for cloud segmentation
    The paper adopts Mask2Former without comparing to other heads; results depend on this choice.
  • domain assumption The custom L8 Biome split and target filtering are acceptable for comparing methods
    The paper removes images without targets and splits 6:2:2 without discussion of potential bias.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Adapting Vision Foundation Models for Robust Cloud Segmentation in Remote Sensing Images." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VKVFESNW

@misc{pith2026241113127,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Adapting Vision Foundation Models for Robust Cloud Segmentation in Remote Sensing Images},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VKVFESNW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13127}
}
read the original abstract

Cloud segmentation is a critical challenge in remote sensing image interpretation, as its accuracy directly impacts the effectiveness of subsequent data processing and analysis. Recently, vision foundation models (VFM) have demonstrated powerful generalization capabilities across various visual tasks. In this paper, we present a parameter-efficient adaptive approach, termed Cloud-Adapter, designed to enhance the accuracy and robustness of cloud segmentation. Our method leverages a VFM pretrained on general domain data, which remains frozen, eliminating the need for additional training. Cloud-Adapter incorporates a lightweight spatial perception module that initially utilizes a convolutional neural network (ConvNet) to extract dense spatial representations. These multi-scale features are then aggregated and serve as contextual inputs to an adapting module, which modulates the frozen transformer layers within the VFM. Experimental results demonstrate that the Cloud-Adapter approach, utilizing only 0.6% of the trainable parameters of the frozen backbone, achieves substantial performance gains. Cloud-Adapter consistently achieves state-of-the-art performance across various cloud segmentation datasets from multiple satellite sources, sensor series, data processing levels, land cover scenarios, and annotation granularities. We have released the code and model checkpoints at https://xavierjiezou.github.io/Cloud-Adapter/ to support further research.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13127 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison between (a) the Previous Method and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Detailed network architecture of the proposed Cloud-Adapter method, consisting of the spatial perception and adapting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic diagram of the proposed adapting module. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ablation study of different dimension settings on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Study of the low-rank MLP in the adapting module. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of visualized segmentation results of different models on the coarse-grained cloud segmentation dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of visualized segmentation results of different models on the CloudSEN12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of visualized segmentation results of different models on the CloudSEN12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of visualized segmentation results of different models on the L8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Stability of cloud detection methods for land surface temperature (lst) climate data records (cdrs),

    C. E. Bulgin, R. I. Maidment, D. Ghent, and C. J. Merchant, “Stability of cloud detection methods for land surface temperature (lst) climate data records (cdrs),” Remote Sensing of Environment , vol. 315, p. 114440, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Accurate recon- struction of satellite-derived sst under cloud and cloud-free areas using a physically-informed machine learning approach,

    C.-C. Young, Y .-C. Cheng, M.-A. Lee, and J.-H. Wu, “Accurate recon- struction of satellite-derived sst under cloud and cloud-free areas using a physically-informed machine learning approach,” Remote Sensing of Environment, vol. 313, p. 114339, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Automated cloud, cloud shadow, and snow detection in multitemporal landsat data: An algorithm designed specifically for monitoring land cover change,

    Z. Zhu and C. E. Woodcock, “Automated cloud, cloud shadow, and snow detection in multitemporal landsat data: An algorithm designed specifically for monitoring land cover change,” Remote Sensing of Environment, vol. 152, pp. 217–234, 2014

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    An image transform to characterize and compensate for spatial variations in thin cloud contamination of landsat images,

    Y . Zhang, B. Guindon, and J. Cihlar, “An image transform to characterize and compensate for spatial variations in thin cloud contamination of landsat images,” Remote Sensing of Environment , vol. 82, no. 2, pp. 173–187, 2002

    work page 2002

  5. [5]

    An iterative haze optimized transformation for automatic cloud/haze detection of land- sat imagery,

    S. Chen, X. Chen, J. Chen, P. Jia, X. Cao, and C. Liu, “An iterative haze optimized transformation for automatic cloud/haze detection of land- sat imagery,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 2682–2694, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Improvement and expansion 12 of the fmask algorithm: cloud, cloud shadow, and snow detection for landsats 4–7, 8, and sentinel 2 images,

    Z. Zhu, S. Wang, and C. E. Woodcock, “Improvement and expansion 12 of the fmask algorithm: cloud, cloud shadow, and snow detection for landsats 4–7, 8, and sentinel 2 images,” Remote Sensing of Environment, vol. 159, pp. 269–277, 2015

    work page 2015

  7. [8]

    Deep learning,

    Y . LeCun, Y . Bengio, and G. Hinton, “Deep learning,” Nature, vol. 521, no. 7553, pp. 436–444, 2015

    2015

  8. [9]

    Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition,

    Y . Lecun, L. Bottou, Y . Bengio, and P. Haffner, “Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition,” Proceedings of the IEEE , vol. 86, no. 11, pp. 2278–2324, 1998

    1998

Show all 61 references
  1. [10]

    Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks,

    A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. E. Hinton, “Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks,” in NeurIPS, F. Pereira, C. Burges, L. Bottou, and K. Weinberger, Eds., vol. 25, 2012

    2012

  2. [11]

    Going deeper with convolutions,

    C. Szegedy, W. Liu, Y . Jia, P. Sermanet, S. Reed, D. Anguelov, D. Erhan, V . Vanhoucke, and A. Rabinovich, “Going deeper with convolutions,” in CVPR, 2015

    2015

  3. [12]

    Deep learning based cloud detection for medium and high resolution remote sensing images of different sensors,

    Z. Li, H. Shen, Q. Cheng, Y . Liu, S. You, and Z. He, “Deep learning based cloud detection for medium and high resolution remote sensing images of different sensors,” ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, vol. 150, pp. 197–212, 2019

    2019

  4. [13]

    A cloud detection algorithm for satellite imagery based on deep learning,

    J. H. Jeppesen, R. H. Jacobsen, F. Inceoglu, and T. S. Toftegaard, “A cloud detection algorithm for satellite imagery based on deep learning,” Remote Sensing of Environment , vol. 229, pp. 247–259, 2019

    2019

  5. [14]

    Cloud detection in remote sensing images based on multiscale features-convolutional neural network,

    Z. Shao, Y . Pan, C. Diao, and J. Cai, “Cloud detection in remote sensing images based on multiscale features-convolutional neural network,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 4062–4076, 2019

    2019

  6. [15]

    Cloud detection of remote sensing images by deep learning,

    M. Shi, F. Xie, Y . Zi, and J. Yin, “Cloud detection of remote sensing images by deep learning,” in 2016 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS) , 2016, pp. 701–704

    2016

  7. [16]

    Cdnet: Cnn- based cloud detection for remote sensing imagery,

    J. Yang, J. Guo, H. Yue, Z. Liu, H. Hu, and K. Li, “Cdnet: Cnn- based cloud detection for remote sensing imagery,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 57, no. 8, pp. 6195–6211, 2019

    2019

  8. [17]

    Cdnetv2: Cnn- based cloud detection for remote sensing imagery with cloud-snow coexistence,

    J. Guo, J. Yang, H. Yue, H. Tan, C. Hou, and K. Li, “Cdnetv2: Cnn- based cloud detection for remote sensing imagery with cloud-snow coexistence,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 700–713, 2021

    2021

  9. [18]

    Dabnet: Deformable contextual and boundary-weighted network for cloud detection in remote sensing images,

    Q. He, X. Sun, Z. Yan, and K. Fu, “Dabnet: Deformable contextual and boundary-weighted network for cloud detection in remote sensing images,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 60, pp. 1–16, 2022

    2022

  10. [19]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,

    A. Dosovitskiy, L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, D. Weissenborn, X. Zhai, T. Unterthiner, M. Dehghani, M. Minderer, G. Heigold, S. Gelly et al., “An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,” in ICLR, 2020

    2020

  11. [20]

    Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows,

    Z. Liu, Y . Lin, Y . Cao, H. Hu, Y . Wei, Z. Zhang, S. Lin, and B. Guo, “Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows,” in ICCV, 2021, pp. 10 012–10 022

    2021

  12. [21]

    Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners,

    K. He, X. Chen, S. Xie, Y . Li, P. Doll ´ar, and R. Girshick, “Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners,” in CVPR, 2022, pp. 16 000– 16 009

    2022

  13. [22]

    Segment anything,

    A. Kirillov, E. Mintun, and N. e. a. Ravi, “Segment anything,” in ICCV, 2023, pp. 4015–4026

    2023

  14. [23]

    DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision,

    M. Oquab, T. Darcet, and T. e. a. Moutakanni, “DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision,” Transactions on Machine Learning Research Journal, pp. 1–31, 2024

    2024

  15. [24]

    Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database,

    J. Deng, W. Dong, R. Socher, L.-J. Li, K. Li, and L. Fei-Fei, “Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database,” inCVPR, 2009, pp. 248–255

    2009

  16. [25]

    Crossvit: Cross-attention multi- scale vision transformer for image classification,

    C.-F. R. Chen, Q. Fan, and R. Panda, “Crossvit: Cross-attention multi- scale vision transformer for image classification,” in ICCV, October 2021, pp. 357–366

    2021

  17. [26]

    Sam-cod: Sam-guided unified framework for weakly-supervised camouflaged object detection,

    H. Chen, P. Wei, G. Guo, and S. Gao, “Sam-cod: Sam-guided unified framework for weakly-supervised camouflaged object detection,” in ECCV, 2025, pp. 315–331

    2025

  18. [27]

    Swin transformer embedding unet for remote sensing image semantic segmen- tation,

    X. He, Y . Zhou, J. Zhao, D. Zhang, R. Yao, and Y . Xue, “Swin transformer embedding unet for remote sensing image semantic segmen- tation,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 60, pp. 1–15, 2022

    2022

  19. [28]

    Mask dino: Towards a unified transformer-based framework for object detection and segmentation,

    F. Li, H. Zhang, H. Xu, S. Liu, L. Zhang, L. M. Ni, and H.-Y . Shum, “Mask dino: Towards a unified transformer-based framework for object detection and segmentation,” in CVPR, June 2023, pp. 3041–3050

    2023

  20. [29]

    Sem- mae: Semantic-guided masking for learning masked autoencoders,

    G. Li, H. Zheng, D. Liu, C. Wang, B. Su, and C. Zheng, “Sem- mae: Semantic-guided masking for learning masked autoencoders,” in NeurIPS, vol. 35, 2022, pp. 14 290–14 302

    2022

  21. [30]

    Mcdnet: Multilevel cloud detection network for remote sensing images based on dual- perspective change-guided and multi-scale feature fusion,

    J. Dong, Y . Wang, Y . Yang, M. Yang, and J. Chen, “Mcdnet: Multilevel cloud detection network for remote sensing images based on dual- perspective change-guided and multi-scale feature fusion,” International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation , vol. 129, ...

    2024

  22. [31]

    Dual-branch network for cloud and cloud shadow segmentation,

    C. Lu, M. Xia, M. Qian, and B. Chen, “Dual-branch network for cloud and cloud shadow segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 60, pp. 1–12, 2022

    2022

  23. [32]

    Remote sensing image cloud detection using a shallow convolutional neural network,

    D. Chai, J. Huang, M. Wu, X. Yang, and R. Wang, “Remote sensing image cloud detection using a shallow convolutional neural network,” ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing , vol. 209, pp. 66–84, 2024

    2024

  24. [33]

    Kappamask: Ai-based cloudmask processor for sentinel-2,

    M. Domnich, I. S ¨unter, H. Trofimov, O. Wold, F. Harun, A. Kostiukhin, M. J ¨arveoja, M. Veske, T. Tamm, K. V oormansik et al. , “Kappamask: Ai-based cloudmask processor for sentinel-2,” Remote Sensing, vol. 13, no. 20, p. 4100, 2021

    2021

  25. [34]

    High- resolution cloud detection network,

    J. Li, T. Xue, J. Zhao, J. Ge, Y . Min, W. Su, and K. Zhan, “High- resolution cloud detection network,” Journal of Electronic Imaging , vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 043 027–043 027, 2024

    2024

  26. [35]

    Transferring deep models for cloud detection in multisensor images via weakly supervised learning,

    S. Zhu, Z. Li, and H. Shen, “Transferring deep models for cloud detection in multisensor images via weakly supervised learning,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 62, pp. 1–18, 2024

    2024

  27. [36]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, “U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,” in MICCAI, 2015, pp. 234–241

    2015

  28. [37]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in CVPR, 2016, pp. 770–778

    2016

  29. [38]

    Feature pyramid networks for object detection,

    T.-Y . Lin, P. Doll´ar, R. Girshick, K. He, B. Hariharan, and S. Belongie, “Feature pyramid networks for object detection,” in CVPR, 2017, pp. 936–944

    2017

  30. [39]

    Deeplab: Semantic image segmentation with deep convolutional nets, atrous convolution, and fully connected crfs,

    L.-C. Chen, G. Papandreou, I. Kokkinos, K. Murphy, and A. L. Yuille, “Deeplab: Semantic image segmentation with deep convolutional nets, atrous convolution, and fully connected crfs,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 834–848, 2018

    2018

  31. [40]

    Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,

    J. D. M.-W. C. Kenton and L. K. Toutanova, “Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,” in NAACL, vol. 1, 2019, p. 2

    2019

  32. [41]

    Language models are few-shot learners,

    T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, and et al., “Language models are few-shot learners,” in NeurIPS, vol. 33, 2020, pp. 1877–1901

    2020

  33. [42]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, and C. e. a. Hallacy, “Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,” in ICML, vol. 139, 2021, pp. 8748–8763

    2021

  34. [43]

    A survey on transfer learning,

    S. J. Pan and Q. Yang, “A survey on transfer learning,” IEEE Trans- actions on knowledge and data engineering , vol. 22, no. 10, pp. 1345– 1359, 2009

    2009

  35. [44]

    Unsupervised domain adaptation by backpropagation,

    Y . Ganin and V . Lempitsky, “Unsupervised domain adaptation by backpropagation,” in ICML, vol. 37, 2015, pp. 1180–1189

    2015

  36. [45]

    Parameter-efficient transfer learning for nlp,

    N. Houlsby, A. Giurgiu, S. Jastrzebski, B. Morrone, Q. De Laroussilhe, A. Gesmundo, M. Attariyan, and S. Gelly, “Parameter-efficient transfer learning for nlp,” in ICML, 2019, pp. 2790–2799

    2019

  37. [46]

    LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models,

    E. J. Hu, yelong shen, P. Wallis, Z. Allen-Zhu, Y . Li, S. Wang, L. Wang, and W. Chen, “LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models,” in ICLR, 2022, pp. 1–13

    2022

  38. [47]

    Ip-adapter: Text compatible image prompt adapter for text-to-image diffusion models,

    H. Ye, J. Zhang, S. Liu, X. Han, and W. Yang, “Ip-adapter: Text compatible image prompt adapter for text-to-image diffusion models,” 2023

    2023

  39. [48]

    T2i- adapter: Learning adapters to dig out more controllable ability for text- to-image diffusion models,

    C. Mou, X. Wang, L. Xie, Y . Wu, J. Zhang, Z. Qi, and Y . Shan, “T2i- adapter: Learning adapters to dig out more controllable ability for text- to-image diffusion models,” in AAAI, vol. 38, no. 5, 2024, pp. 4296– 4304

    2024

  40. [49]

    Vision transformer adapter for dense predictions,

    Z. Chen, Y . Duan, W. Wang, J. He, T. Lu, J. Dai, and Y . Qiao, “Vision transformer adapter for dense predictions,” in ICLR, 2023, pp. 1–20

    2023

  41. [50]

    Sam-adapter: Adapting segment anything in underperformed scenes,

    T. Chen, L. Zhu, C. Deng, R. Cao, Y . Wang, S. Zhang, Z. Li, L. Sun, Y . Zang, and P. Mao, “Sam-adapter: Adapting segment anything in underperformed scenes,” in ICCV, 2023, pp. 3367–3375

    2023

  42. [51]

    Xception: Deep learning with depthwise separable convo- lutions,

    F. Chollet, “Xception: Deep learning with depthwise separable convo- lutions,” in CVPR, 2017, pp. 1800–1807

    2017

  43. [52]

    Cat: Cross attention in vision transformer,

    H. Lin, X. Cheng, X. Wu, and D. Shen, “Cat: Cross attention in vision transformer,” in ICME, 2022, pp. 1–6

    2022

  44. [53]

    Ccnet: Criss-cross attention for semantic segmentation,

    Z. Huang, X. Wang, L. Huang, C. Huang, Y . Wei, and W. Liu, “Ccnet: Criss-cross attention for semantic segmentation,” in ICCV, October 2019

    2019

  45. [54]

    U-net transformer: Self and cross attention for medical image segmen- tation,

    O. Petit, N. Thome, C. Rambour, L. Themyr, T. Collins, and L. Soler, “U-net transformer: Self and cross attention for medical image segmen- tation,” in MLMI, 2021, pp. 267–276. 13

    2021

  46. [55]

    PMAA: A progressive multi- scale attention autoencoder model for high-performance cloud removal from multi-temporal satellite imagery,

    X. Zou, K. Li, J. Xing, P. Tao, and Y . Cui, “PMAA: A progressive multi- scale attention autoencoder model for high-performance cloud removal from multi-temporal satellite imagery,” in ECAI, vol. 372, 2023, pp. 3165–3172

    2023

  47. [56]

    Cloudsen12, a global dataset for semantic understanding of cloud and cloud shadow in sentinel-2,

    C. Aybar, L. Ysuhuaylas, J. Loja, K. Gonzales, F. Herrera, L. Bautista, R. Yali, A. Flores, L. Diaz, N. Cuenca et al. , “Cloudsen12, a global dataset for semantic understanding of cloud and cloud shadow in sentinel-2,” Scientific data, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 782, 2022

    2022

  48. [57]

    Cloud detection algorithm comparison and validation for operational landsat data products,

    S. Foga, P. L. Scaramuzza, S. Guo, Z. Zhu, R. D. Dilley, T. Beckmann, G. L. Schmidt, J. L. Dwyer, M. Joseph Hughes, and B. Laue, “Cloud detection algorithm comparison and validation for operational landsat data products,” Remote Sensing of Environment , vol. 194, pp. 379–390, 2017

    2017

  49. [58]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization,

    I. Loshchilov and F. Hutter, “Decoupled weight decay regularization,” in ICLR, 2018

    2018

  50. [59]

    Delving deep into rectifiers: Surpassing human-level performance on imagenet classification,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Delving deep into rectifiers: Surpassing human-level performance on imagenet classification,” in ICCV, 2015, pp. 1026–1034

    2015

  51. [60]

    Masked-attention mask transformer for universal image segmentation,

    B. Cheng, I. Misra, A. G. Schwing, A. Kirillov, and R. Girdhar, “Masked-attention mask transformer for universal image segmentation,” in CVPR, 2022, pp. 1290–1299

    2022

  52. [61]

    A convnet for the 2020s,

    Z. Liu, H. Mao, C.-Y . Wu, C. Feichtenhofer, T. Darrell, and S. Xie, “A convnet for the 2020s,” in CVPR, 2022, pp. 11 976–11 986

    2022

  53. [62]

    Rsam-seg: A sam-based approach with prior knowledge integration for remote sensing image semantic segmentation,

    J. Zhang, X. Yang, R. Jiang, W. Shao, and L. Zhang, “Rsam-seg: A sam-based approach with prior knowledge integration for remote sensing image semantic segmentation,” 2024. Xuechao Zou received the B.E. degree in 2021 and the M.S. degree in 2024 from the School of Computer Tech...

    2024

Pith tools

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