Global and Local Attention-Based Transformer for Hyperspectral Image Change Detection

Feng Gao; Junyu Dong; Qian Du; Ziyi Wang

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 22 references

Global and Local Attention-Based Transformer for Hyperspectral Image Change Detection

T0 review · 3 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 GLAFormer pairs global and local attention to beat prior hyperspectral change-detection methods on all three test datasets, the paper reports.

desk verdict A sensible transformer variant for HSI change detection with consistent ablations, but the superiority claim rests on an undocumented comparison protocol and single-run results. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14109 v1 pith:PI7NKY7A submitted 2024-11-21 eess.IV

Ziyi Wang , Feng Gao , Junyu Dong , Qian Du This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.IV

keywords hyperspectralimagechangedetectionvisiontransformerglobalandlocalattentioncross-gatingfeed-forwardnetworkremotesensingGLAFormer

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

This paper proposes GLAFormer, a Transformer for hyperspectral image change detection that pairs a global and local attention module (GLAM) with a cross-gated feed-forward network (CGFN). The authors argue that standard Transformer attention leans too heavily on global context and loses local detail, and that the usual feed-forward layer has limited nonlinearity and noise robustness. GLAFormer splits attention heads so one branch captures low-frequency global structure on downsampled feature maps while another captures high-frequency local detail in non-overlapping windows, then fuses the two. The CGFN uses parallel convolutions with different kernel sizes and cross-gating to amplify salient features and suppress noise. The paper reports that GLAFormer outperforms all compared state-of-the-art methods on the River, Farmland, and Hermiston datasets, with the largest gains over the previous best method, GTMSiam.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the global and local attention module (GLAM), which splits input feature channels into two branches after reshaping the feature map into 3x3 non-overlapping windows. The local branch applies self-attention inside each window, encoding high-frequency detail, while the global branch average-pools each window and applies attention using queries from the full-resolution feature map, encoding low-frequency structure; the two outputs are concatenated. A second mechanism, the cross-gated feed-forward network (CGFN), runs two parallel paths with different kernel-size convolutions and gates the features of each path with the other before an element-wise sum and a residual connection.

What would settle it

Retrain the baselines, especially GTMSiam, on the same patches, split, optimizer, and settings across multiple random seeds; if the 0.70-1.58% overall accuracy and 0.78-4.42% Kappa gaps shrink to within seed noise, GLAFormer's claimed superiority would not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that replacing standard multi-head self-attention and feed-forward networks in a vision Transformer with a global-local attention split plus a cross-gated feed-forward network yields consistently better change-detection accuracy on three benchmark hyperspectral datasets. On the River, Farmland, and Hermiston datasets, the authors report overall accuracies of 97.81%, 98.95%, and 97.23% and Kappa coefficients of 83.72%, 97.14%, and 91.68%, each above every compared method. The ablation study shows that removing either the GLAM or the CGFN lowers accuracy, so both modules contribute to the reported improvement.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison is fair and representative: every baseline is trained and evaluated under the same protocol, and the single reported run for each method reflects its typical performance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

On the three datasets tested, GLAFormer is reported as the new best method by overall accuracy and Kappa coefficient.
The global-local split lets a single Transformer block capture both long-range spatial-spectral context and fine local boundaries, which matters for small or irregular changed regions.
The cross-gating path is attributed with reducing false alarms in noisy change maps, as seen qualitatively in the Hermiston results.
Both GLAM and CGFN are presented as replacements for standard attention and feed-forward components inside a Transformer block, so they can be used with the rest of the architecture unchanged.

Reading between the lines

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

The reported margins over GTMSiam (0.70-1.58% in overall accuracy and 0.78-4.42% in Kappa) are small enough that repeated-trial evaluation with confidence intervals would clarify whether the gains are stable across random seeds.
The same GLAM and CGFN blocks could be tested in other hyperspectral tasks such as classification or segmentation, where global context and local detail both matter, to see if the gains generalize beyond change detection.
Because the global branch uses full-resolution queries against pooled keys, one could ablate the pooling factor to test how sensitive the method is to the ratio between local and global receptive fields.
All three datasets come from the same Hyperion sensor, so testing on airborne or other satellite hyperspectral data would probe the method's generality across sensors and acquisition conditions.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a competent, modest architecture paper. The GLAM (splitting heads into window-based local attention and pooled global attention) plus cross-gated FFN is a reasonable combination that I don't think appears in the cited HSI change detection literature. The ablation shows each module contributes on all three datasets, and the code is promised. If you work on HSI change detection, it's worth a look.

What it does well: the method is clearly described, the equations match the figures, and the complexity arguments are brief but sensible. The ablation against a basic transformer and two ablated variants gives internal evidence that both modules help. The qualitative figures support the quantitative trend in the highlighted regions.

The soft spot is exactly what the stress-test flags. Section III-A gives training details for GLAFormer only. There is no statement that the seven baselines were retrained under the same patch size, split, or training budget. If the baseline numbers were taken from the original papers with different protocols, the comparison is not controlled. Table I has one number per cell, with no error bars or significance tests. The margins over GTMSiam are 0.70–1.58% OA and up to 4.42% Kappa. With 3% of samples used for training, seed variance alone could plausibly produce gaps of that size. So the sentence "consistently outperforms" is stronger than the evidence supports.

I'd also note one minor overreach: the claim that the Kappa improvement means "an accuracy boost of over 20% in regions that were challenging" is not backed by any per-class or region-level analysis. That's a small rhetorical flourish, not a fatal flaw.

On citations: the related work is adequate and the comparisons are standard for the subfield. No red flags in the citation pattern.

Bottom line: a plausible architecture paper that would benefit from rerunning baselines under the same protocol and reporting mean ± std over multiple seeds. As is, treat the superiority claim as provisional. It deserves a serious referee because the architecture is sensible and the ablations are informative, but the experimental reporting needs tightening before acceptance.

Recommendation: send it to review. Don't desk reject, but make clear that the comparison protocol and variance need to be addressed.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes GLAFormer, a Transformer architecture for hyperspectral image change detection. The two main components are a global-and-local attention module (GLAM), which splits attention heads between window-based local attention and pooled global attention, and a cross-gated feed-forward network (CGFN), which uses parallel depth-wise convolutions and element-wise gating to enhance nonlinear feature transformation. The method is evaluated on three Hyperion datasets (River, Farmland, Hermiston) with OA and Kappa as metrics, and ablation experiments compare the full model against a basic Transformer and two variants. The paper reports that GLAFormer outperforms seven existing methods on all three datasets, with the largest gains over the strongest baseline GTMSiam.

Significance. If the reported results are reproducible and the comparison is fair, GLAFormer is a competitive contribution to HSI change detection, combining known elements (local window attention, pooled global attention, gating in feed-forward networks) in a coherent way. The paper makes its source code publicly available, which is a practical strength. However, the central claim of consistent superiority is entirely empirical and rests on a single comparison table without statistical support. The architectural novelty is incremental rather than fundamental, so the significance of the paper depends on whether the empirical claims survive a controlled comparison.

major comments (3)

[Section III-A and Table I] The comparison protocol for the baselines is not documented. Section III-A specifies the patch size, training/validation split, optimizer, learning rate, batch size, and number of epochs only for GLAFormer. It is not stated whether IR-MAD, SSA-SiamNet, SSCNN-S, CDFormer, SSTFormer, CSDBF, and GTMSiam were retrained under exactly the same protocol or whether their numbers were taken from the original papers, which may have used different patch sizes, splits, or training budgets. Without this information, Table I is not a controlled comparison and the statement in Section III-B that the proposed method 'consistently outperforms' the compared methods is not fully supported.
[Table I and Section III-B] Each entry in Table I is a single run with no error bars, standard deviations, or significance tests. The smallest reported advantage over the strongest baseline is River, with +0.70% OA and +0.78% Kappa. With only 3% of samples used for training, random split variation and seed variation can plausibly produce differences of this magnitude. The authors should report results over multiple seeds (or at least multiple random splits), include standard deviations, and where possible apply a paired significance test such as McNemar's test. Without this, the superiority claim over GTMSiam is not statistically established.
[Section III-C and Table II] The ablation text states that 'GLAFormer and its variants beat the Basic Transformer in all cases,' but Table II contradicts this: on the River dataset, GLAFormer w/o GLAM achieves 97.17% OA, which is lower than the Basic Transformer's 97.19% OA. The conclusion that both GLAM and CGFN are necessary is therefore not supported as stated. The authors should correct this statement and discuss the negative or marginal contribution of GLAM on the River dataset, preferably with repeated trials to determine whether the differences are meaningful.

minor comments (5)

[Section III-A] The text says 'six state-of-the-art models are selected for comparison' but then lists seven methods (IR-MAD, SSA-SiamNet, SSCNN-S, CDFormer, SSTFormer, CSDBF, GTMSiam). Please correct the count.
[Section II-A, Eq. (2)] The description of the global attention branch says that queries Ql are taken from the original feature map, but the preceding paragraph states that input features are split along the channel dimension before entering the global and local branches. Please clarify how Ql is obtained after channel splitting and confirm that the dimensions in Eq. (2) are consistent.
[Table I and Figures 4-6] There are minor naming inconsistencies: the table header lists 'IR-MDA' while the text and references use 'IR-MAD,' and the figure captions use 'CDFomer' while the text uses 'CDFormer.' Please unify the naming.
[Section III-B] The sentence 'This signifies an accuracy boost of over 20% in regions that were challenging for previous models to identify' appears to interpret a Kappa improvement as a region-level accuracy improvement, which is not directly justified. Please either remove or rephrase this claim with supporting evidence.
[Abstract and Section IV] The abstract states that the source code is available at a GitHub URL, while Section IV says the codes 'will be released.' Please clarify the current availability status.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper's claims are empirical evaluations on held-out test data with an architecture trained from scratch; no analytic derivation reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

GLAFormer is an empirical pattern-recognition paper. The proposed modules (GLAM, CGFN) are defined directly from input feature maps via attention, pooling, convolutions, and gating (Eqs. 1-5), with no parameter fitted to the reported test metrics and no quantity 'predicted' that was used as a training target. The central superiority claim (Section III-B, Table I) is tested on held-out samples (3% training / 2% validation / 95% testing split), so the reported OA/Kappa values are not forced by construction. The ablation study (Table II) compares against a Basic Transformer and variants on the same held-out protocol, again providing independent empirical evidence for the module contributions. The only self-citations are to datasets or earlier methods (e.g., refs. [6], [16] involving co-author Qian Du), and they are not load-bearing: the River dataset is an external benchmark and no uniqueness theorem or analytical result is imported from the authors' prior work. Skeptical concerns about baseline retraining protocol, single-run results, and small margins are validity/robustness issues, not circularity. Thus the derivation chain is self-contained and no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The empirical performance claim rests on the training/evaluation protocol, the accuracy of the public datasets' labels, and the comparability of baseline results. The listed hyperparameters are hand-chosen (not per-dataset tuned) and could affect the reported margins. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (10)

patch_size = 9x9
Input patch size for the Transformer encoder, chosen by hand and fixed for all datasets.
embedding_dim = 256
Dimension of the embedded sequence, fixed across the paper.
num_blocks = 4
Number of stacked GLAFormer blocks, set in Section III-A.
num_heads = 8
Number of attention heads, set in Section III-A.
local_window_size = 3x3
Size of non-overlapping windows for local attention and pooling in GLAM.
learning_rate = 0.0006
Adam optimizer learning rate, specified in Section III-A.
batch_size = 128
Training batch size, specified in Section III-A.
epochs = 100
Training duration, specified in Section III-A.
training_ratio = 3%
Fraction of samples used for training, specified in Section III-A.
validation_ratio = 2%
Fraction of samples used for validation, specified in Section III-A.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The ground-truth change maps for the River, Farmland, and Hermiston datasets are accurate and registered to the input images.
The paper uses these public datasets without error analysis on label noise; evaluation metrics assume reliable labels.
domain assumption All compared methods are trained and evaluated under the same protocol (patch size, train/validation/test split, optimizer settings).
Section III-A specifies settings only for GLAFormer; the paper does not report retraining details for baselines, so the fair-comparison premise is unstated.
domain assumption OA and Kappa coefficient are sufficient to establish practical superiority in change detection.
The paper uses only these two metrics; no uncertainty intervals or per-class results are given.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Global and Local Attention-Based Transformer for Hyperspectral Image Change Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PI7NKY7A

@misc{pith2026241114109,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Global and Local Attention-Based Transformer for Hyperspectral Image Change Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PI7NKY7A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14109}
}

read the original abstract

Recently Transformer-based hyperspectral image (HSI) change detection methods have shown remarkable performance. Nevertheless, existing attention mechanisms in Transformers have limitations in local feature representation. To address this issue, we propose Global and Local Attention-based Transformer (GLAFormer), which incorporates a global and local attention module (GLAM) to combine high-frequency and low-frequency signals. Furthermore, we introduce a cross-gating mechanism, called cross-gated feed-forward network (CGFN), to emphasize salient features and suppress noise interference. Specifically, the GLAM splits attention heads into global and local attention components to capture comprehensive spatial-spectral features. The global attention component employs global attention on downsampled feature maps to capture low-frequency information, while the local attention component focuses on high-frequency details using non-overlapping window-based local attention. The CGFN enhances the feature representation via convolutions and cross-gating mechanism in parallel paths. The proposed GLAFormer is evaluated on three HSI datasets. The results demonstrate its superiority over state-of-the-art HSI change detection methods. The source code of GLAFormer is available at \url{https://github.com/summitgao/GLAFormer}.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14109 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Overview of the proposed GLAFormer. In the GLAFormer block, high-frequency and low-frequency signals are fused through global and local [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Illustration of global and local attention module (GLAM). The module consists of two branches: global attention and local attention. The global [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The architecture of cross-gated feed-forward network (CGFN). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Change detection results of different methods on Farmland dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Change detection results of different methods on Hermiston dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

[1]

CDFormer: A hyperspectral image change detection method based on Transformer encoders,

J. Ding, X. Li, and L. Zhao, “CDFormer: A hyperspectral image change detection method based on Transformer encoders,”IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters , vol. 19, pp. 1–5, 2022

work page 2022
[2]

Detection of initial damage in Norway spruce canopies using hyperspectral airborne data,

P. K. E. Campbell, B. N. Rock, M. E. Martin, C. D. Neefus, J. R. Irons, E. M. Middleton, and J. Albrechtova, “Detection of initial damage in Norway spruce canopies using hyperspectral airborne data,” International Journal of Remote Sensing , vol. 25, no. 24, pp. 5557–5584, 2004

work page 2004
[3]

A review of change detection in multitemporal hyperspectral images: Current techniques, applications, and challenges,

S. Liu, D. Marinelli, L. Bruzzone, and F. Bovolo, “A review of change detection in multitemporal hyperspectral images: Current techniques, applications, and challenges,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 140–158, 2019

work page 2019
[4]

Fine-grained classification of ur- ban functional zones and landscape pattern analysis using hyperspectral satellite imagery: A case study of Wuhan,

J. Yuan, S. Wang, C. Wu, and Y . Xu, “Fine-grained classification of ur- ban functional zones and landscape pattern analysis using hyperspectral satellite imagery: A case study of Wuhan,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing , vol. 15, pp. 3972–3991, 2022

work page 2022
[5]

A theoretical framework for unsupervised change detection based on change vector analysis in the polar domain,

F. Bovolo and L. Bruzzone, “A theoretical framework for unsupervised change detection based on change vector analysis in the polar domain,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 218–236, 2007

work page 2007
[6]

Three-order Tucker decomposition and reconstruction detector for unsupervised hyperspectral change de- tection,

Z. Hou, W. Li, R. Tao, and Q. Du, “Three-order Tucker decomposition and reconstruction detector for unsupervised hyperspectral change de- tection,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing , vol. 14, pp. 6194–6205, 2021

work page 2021
[7]

Pixel-based and object-oriented change detection analysis using high-resolution imagery,

I. Niemeyer and M. J. Canty, “Pixel-based and object-oriented change detection analysis using high-resolution imagery,” in Proceedings 25th Symposium on Safeguards and Nuclear Material Management , 2003, pp. 2133–2136

work page 2003
[8]

The regularized iteratively reweighted mad method for change detection in multi-and hyperspectral data,

A. A. Nielsen, “The regularized iteratively reweighted mad method for change detection in multi-and hyperspectral data,” IEEE Transactions on Image processing , vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 463–478, 2007

work page 2007

Show all 22 references

[9]

Hyperspectral change detection: An ex- perimental comparative study,

M. Hasanlou and S. T. Seydi, “Hyperspectral change detection: An ex- perimental comparative study,”International Journal of Remote Sensing , vol. 39, no. 20, pp. 7029–7083, 2018

2018
[10]

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
[11]

Unsupervised deep change vector analysis for multiple-change detection in VHR images,

S. Saha, F. Bovolo, and L. Bruzzone, “Unsupervised deep change vector analysis for multiple-change detection in VHR images,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 3677–3693, 2019

2019
[12]

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 Proceedings of International Conference on Learning Repres...

2021
[13]

End-to-end object detection with Transformers,

N. Carion, F. Massa, G. Synnaeve, N. Usunier, A. Kirillov, and S. Zagoruyko, “End-to-end object detection with Transformers,” in Proceedings of European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , 2020, pp. 213–229

2020
[14]

CSANet: Cross-temporal interaction symmetric attention network for hyperspectral image change detection,

R. Song, W. Ni, W. Cheng, and X. Wang, “CSANet: Cross-temporal interaction symmetric attention network for hyperspectral image change detection,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters , vol. 19, pp. 1–5, 2022

2022
[15]

VTC-LFC: Vision Transformer compression with low-frequency components,

Z. Wang, H. Luo, P. Wang, F. Ding, F. Wang, and H. Li, “VTC-LFC: Vision Transformer compression with low-frequency components,” in Proceedings of Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), vol. 35, 2022, pp. 13 974–13 988

2022
[16]

GETNET: A general end-to-end 2-D CNN framework for hyperspectral image change detection,

Q. Wang, Z. Yuan, Q. Du, and X. Li, “GETNET: A general end-to-end 2-D CNN framework for hyperspectral image change detection,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 3–13, 2018

2018
[17]

Semi-supervised change detection method for multi-temporal hyperspectral images,

Y . Yuan, H. Lv, and X. Lu, “Semi-supervised change detection method for multi-temporal hyperspectral images,” Neurocomputing, vol. 148, pp. 363–375, 2015

2015
[18]

Ssa-siamnet: Spectral–spatial-wise attention-based siamese network for hyperspectral image change detection,

L. Wang, L. Wang, Q. Wang, and P. M. Atkinson, “Ssa-siamnet: Spectral–spatial-wise attention-based siamese network for hyperspectral image change detection,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 60, pp. 1–18, 2021

2021
[19]

SSCNN-S: A spectral-spatial convolution neural network with Siamese architecture for change detection,

T. Zhan, B. Song, Y . Xu, M. Wan, X. Wang, G. Yang, and Z. Wu, “SSCNN-S: A spectral-spatial convolution neural network with Siamese architecture for change detection,” Remote Sensing, vol. 13, no. 5, 2021

2021
[20]

Spectral-spatial-temporal Transformers for hyperspectral image change detection,

Y . Wang, D. Hong, J. Sha, L. Gao, L. Liu, Y . Zhang, and X. Rong, “Spectral-spatial-temporal Transformers for hyperspectral image change detection,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 60, pp. 1–14, 2022

2022
[21]

CSDBF: Dual-branch frame- work based on temporal–spatial joint graph attention with complement strategy for hyperspectral image change detection,

X. Wang, K. Zhao, X. Zhao, and S. Li, “CSDBF: Dual-branch frame- work based on temporal–spatial joint graph attention with complement strategy for hyperspectral image change detection,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 60, pp. 1–18, 2022

2022
[22]

GTMSiam: Gated transmitting-based multiscale siamese network for hyperspectral image change detection,

X. Wang and K. Zhao, “GTMSiam: Gated transmitting-based multiscale siamese network for hyperspectral image change detection,” IEEE Geo- science and Remote Sensing Letters , vol. 20, pp. 1–5, 2023

2023

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

CDFormer: A hyperspectral image change detection method based on Transformer encoders,

J. Ding, X. Li, and L. Zhao, “CDFormer: A hyperspectral image change detection method based on Transformer encoders,”IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters , vol. 19, pp. 1–5, 2022

work page 2022

[2] [2]

Detection of initial damage in Norway spruce canopies using hyperspectral airborne data,

P. K. E. Campbell, B. N. Rock, M. E. Martin, C. D. Neefus, J. R. Irons, E. M. Middleton, and J. Albrechtova, “Detection of initial damage in Norway spruce canopies using hyperspectral airborne data,” International Journal of Remote Sensing , vol. 25, no. 24, pp. 5557–5584, 2004

work page 2004

[3] [3]

A review of change detection in multitemporal hyperspectral images: Current techniques, applications, and challenges,

S. Liu, D. Marinelli, L. Bruzzone, and F. Bovolo, “A review of change detection in multitemporal hyperspectral images: Current techniques, applications, and challenges,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 140–158, 2019

work page 2019

[4] [4]

Fine-grained classification of ur- ban functional zones and landscape pattern analysis using hyperspectral satellite imagery: A case study of Wuhan,

J. Yuan, S. Wang, C. Wu, and Y . Xu, “Fine-grained classification of ur- ban functional zones and landscape pattern analysis using hyperspectral satellite imagery: A case study of Wuhan,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing , vol. 15, pp. 3972–3991, 2022

work page 2022

[5] [5]

A theoretical framework for unsupervised change detection based on change vector analysis in the polar domain,

F. Bovolo and L. Bruzzone, “A theoretical framework for unsupervised change detection based on change vector analysis in the polar domain,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 218–236, 2007

work page 2007

[6] [6]

Three-order Tucker decomposition and reconstruction detector for unsupervised hyperspectral change de- tection,

Z. Hou, W. Li, R. Tao, and Q. Du, “Three-order Tucker decomposition and reconstruction detector for unsupervised hyperspectral change de- tection,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing , vol. 14, pp. 6194–6205, 2021

work page 2021

[7] [7]

Pixel-based and object-oriented change detection analysis using high-resolution imagery,

I. Niemeyer and M. J. Canty, “Pixel-based and object-oriented change detection analysis using high-resolution imagery,” in Proceedings 25th Symposium on Safeguards and Nuclear Material Management , 2003, pp. 2133–2136

work page 2003

[8] [8]

The regularized iteratively reweighted mad method for change detection in multi-and hyperspectral data,

A. A. Nielsen, “The regularized iteratively reweighted mad method for change detection in multi-and hyperspectral data,” IEEE Transactions on Image processing , vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 463–478, 2007

work page 2007