Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Multi-Resolution SAR and Optical Remote Sensing Image Registration Methods: A Review, Datasets, and Future Perspectives

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read On a new 10,850-pair benchmark spanning 0.16 to 10 meter resolution, none of 16 registration algorithms succeeds across all resolutions and scenes, and almost all fail on sub-meter SAR-optical pairs.

desk verdict MultiResSAR is a genuinely useful dataset, but the benchmark's ground truth is seeded by an unnamed automatic method, so the headline rankings should not be taken as final until that is addressed. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01002 v1 pith:V4734E5C submitted 2025-02-03 cs.CV

Wenfei Zhang , Ruipeng Zhao , Yongxiang Yao , Yi Wan , Peihao Wu , Jiayuan Li , Yansheng Li , Yongjun Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords SAR-opticalimageregistrationMultiResSARdatasetmulti-resolutionbenchmarksub-meterevaluationremotesensingdatafusionRIFTXoFTR
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 argues that the hard open problem in SAR-optical image registration is no longer modality difference alone but resolution, especially sub-meter data. The authors build and release MultiResSAR, a public dataset of 10,850 multi-source, multi-resolution, multi-scene SAR-optical pairs, and benchmark 16 state-of-the-art algorithms on it. They find that no algorithm achieves 100% success, that performance drops sharply as resolution increases, and that nearly all matching fails on 0.16-meter Umbra imagery. On this benchmark the best traditional method, RIFT, reaches 66.51% success, while the best deep learning method, XoFTR, reaches 40.58%. The paper concludes that future progress depends on noise suppression, 3D geometric fusion, cross-view transformation modeling, and deep learning optimization rather than incremental descriptor tweaks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the MultiResSAR dataset: 10,850 SAR-optical pairs built from four SAR satellites (Sentinel-1 at 10 meters, HT1-A at 3 meters, GF-3 at 1 meter, and Umbra at 0.16 meters) with optical images from Google Earth and six scene types including urban, rural, plains, hills, mountains, and water. The argument runs through this dataset because its resolution spread and source diversity are what expose the resolution-dependent collapse. The evaluation uses four metrics: Success Rate (a pair counts as successful when it yields at least 20 correct matches, with a root-mean-square error at most 10 pixels), Number of Correct Matches, RMSE, and matching time; ground truth is produced by automatic registration followed by manual visual inspection in which professionals select control points and keep error within one pixel.

What would settle it

Independently re-annotate a random stratified sample of MultiResSAR pairs with fresh control points chosen by different operators, or validate them against geodetic ground control, then recompute all 16 methods' success rates; if RIFT's lead over XoFTR, or the near-total failure on 0.16-meter pairs, changes materially under that independent ground truth, the paper's central empirical claim is an artifact of its annotation process.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is an empirical measurement: registration accuracy on SAR-optical image pairs degrades with spatial resolution, and no current method generalizes across sources, scenes, and resolutions. On the full MultiResSAR dataset, RIFT has the highest success rate at 66.51%, with HOWP at 52.63% and ASS at 39.34% among traditional methods; among deep learning methods XoFTR leads at 40.58%, followed by XFeat at 36.29% and RoMa at 35.26%. Most algorithms fall below 50%. On the 850 ultra-high-resolution Umbra pairs at 0.16 meters, almost every method's matches fail, and only RoMa produces correct registration results in four image groups, with few and unevenly distributed points. The authors present MultiResSAR as the first public benchmark combining multiple satellites, resolutions from 0.16 to 10 meters, and diverse scenes, positioned to fill the gap left by existing datasets that are single-resolution or lack accurate ground truth.

Load-bearing premise

All benchmark conclusions depend on the MultiResSAR ground truth being unbiased and accurate to within one pixel; if the automatic registration used to seed control points systematically favors certain algorithms, the success-rate rankings and the sub-meter failure finding would be skewed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A public multi-resolution benchmark now exists on which future SAR-optical registration claims can be tested fairly, including sub-meter data that was previously missing.
  • Resolution is a first-order driver of failure: methods that appear strong on 10-meter or 1-meter data cannot be assumed to work on sub-meter imagery.
  • The best traditional method (RIFT at 66.51%) outperforms the best deep learning method (XoFTR at 40.58%) on this benchmark, so the deep learning advantage seen on same-modality matching does not automatically transfer to SAR-optical registration.
  • The stated research agenda follows directly: suppress speckle noise, fuse 3D geometric information, model cross-view transformations, and optimize deep learning architectures for high-resolution multi-modal data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If sub-meter failure stems from speckle noise entangled with fine structure and 3D layover effects, then approaches that jointly despeckle and register, or that explicitly model SAR imaging geometry, may succeed where descriptor-based and transformer matchers fail; this is a testable extension the paper does not run.
  • The benchmark suggests that conclusions drawn from 10-meter-only datasets such as SEN1-2 may not transfer to modern high-resolution satellites; resolution should be treated as a covariate in future dataset design.
  • Because the ground truth was built from automatic registration plus manual inspection, the reported rankings are only as trustworthy as that one-pixel error claim; an independent geodetic validation of a subset would materially strengthen the benchmark's conclusions.
  • Combining phase-congruency features (the strength of RIFT) with learned refinement and sub-pixel matching (the strength of RoMa and XoFTR) is a natural next architecture to test on the sub-meter subset.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript combines a survey of SAR-optical image registration methods with the introduction of a new benchmark dataset, MultiResSAR, containing 10,850 image pairs from four SAR satellites (Sentinel-1, HT1-A, GF-3, Umbra) with resolutions from 10 m to 0.16 m and scenes covering urban, rural, plain, hill, mountain, and water areas. Sixteen registration algorithms are evaluated with four metrics: success rate (SR), number of correct matches (NCM), RMSE, and matching time (TM). The reported headline findings are that no algorithm achieves 100% success across resolutions and scenes, performance degrades as resolution increases with nearly all methods failing on sub-meter pairs, RIFT is the best traditional method (66.51% SR), and XoFTR is the best deep-learning method (40.58% SR). The paper concludes with future research directions including noise suppression, 3D geometric information fusion, cross-view transformation modeling, and deep-learning optimization.

Significance. The main contribution is a public, multi-source, multi-resolution, multi-scene SAR-optical registration dataset with sub-meter Umbra data, together with a broad comparison of 16 existing methods. If the ground truth is reliable, this is a genuinely useful resource for the remote-sensing registration community: it provides a stress test for both traditional feature-based methods and deep-learning matchers, the dataset and code are made available, and the empirical claims are falsifiable. The survey portion is comprehensive in coverage, though largely descriptive. The benchmark claims are conditional on the integrity of the ground-truth construction, and the manuscript currently does not provide enough independent validation to fully support the comparative rankings and the resolution-degradation conclusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.3] The ground-truth construction is algorithm-in-the-loop: control points are selected "based on the automatic registration results" using an unnamed automatic registration method, then manually refined to within one pixel. Since the same benchmark is later used to rank 16 algorithms, including phase-consistency and self-similarity methods (RIFT, HOWP, ASS, MOSS), the rankings in Table 7 may be partly self-fulfilling if the seeding method shares the same feature and transformation assumptions as any of the benchmarked methods. Please (i) identify the automatic registration method used for seeding, (ii) state explicitly whether it is one of the 16 methods in Table 6 or a different external method, and (iii) provide an independent validation of a random subset of ground-truth control points, for example manually selected tie points without algorithm seeding or photogrammetric checkpoints, with reported residuals. Without this, the central claims about relative algorithm performance cannot be fully assessed.
  2. [Section 5 / Table 7] The claim that registration performance "deteriorates as resolution increases" and that "almost all matches fail in sub-meter resolution image pairs" is not supported by any resolution-stratified numerical result. Table 7 reports only aggregate SR, RMSE, NCM, and TM across the entire dataset, while Fig. 10 shows qualitative examples for the 850 Umbra pairs but no per-resolution success-rate table. Please add a breakdown by resolution class (10 m, 3 m, 1 m, 0.16 m) or by SAR source, including pair counts and the four metrics. This is load-bearing because the resolution-degradation conclusion is one of the paper's primary empirical findings.
  3. [Section 5 / Eq. (1)-(2)] The evaluation metrics lack uncertainty quantification, and the success criterion is not fully pinned down. Equation (1) is typeset in a corrupted form, making the indicator function and summation ambiguous. Beyond reformatting, the paper should state whether each algorithm was run once or multiple times, and report variance or confidence intervals for SR and RMSE, especially for stochastic deep-learning matchers and for RANSAC-based methods. As presented, small differences such as XoFTR's 40.58% versus RoMa's 35.26% cannot be distinguished from run-to-run variability, and the ranking in Table 7 should not be treated as exact without such information.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5, Eq. (1)] The equation for SR is garbled; please rewrite it with a clear indicator function I(p_i), the threshold N_min, and a summation over image pairs.
  2. [References] The XoFTR reference (Ö, T., Köksal, A., et al., 2024) has an incomplete author name; it should read Tuzcuoglu, O., Köksal, A., et al.
  3. [Section 4.4 / Table 5] The HT1-A satellite appears in Table 5 but is not introduced in Section 1 or Section 4; please add a brief description of its band, resolution, and operating characteristics.
  4. [Figures 4 and 10] The ultra-high-resolution example figures would benefit from scale bars and explicit chip sizes or geographic extents, since the text claims 0.16 m resolution but the figures do not show any scale information.
  5. [Section 5, Fig. 10] The text states that "only the RoMa algorithm achieved correct registration results in the four image groups," but the relationship between these four groups and the 850-pair Umbra subset is unclear; please clarify the denominator and report the corresponding success counts.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Ground-truth control points are selected 'based on the automatic registration results,' so Table 7 rankings and the resolution-degradation conclusion rest on a partially algorithm-generated benchmark reference.

  1. other [Section 4.3 (Ground Truth Acquisition for Dataset Registration) and Section 5, Eqs. (1)-(2)]
    "Specifically, for each pair of optical and SAR images, based on the automatic registration results, professionals in the fields of surveying and remote sensing are invited to uniformly select several control points that are geometrically similar and least affected by noise, such as corners or other prominent features, and ensure that the error is controlled within one pixel."

    The evaluation in Section 5 computes SR and RMSE using 'the number of ground truth points' (Eqs. 1-2). Those ground-truth points are not an independent geodetic reference; Section 4.3 states they are selected 'based on the automatic registration results.' Thus the reference transform against which all 16 algorithms are scored is a human-filtered version of an unnamed automatic alignment. The paper itself concedes that 'algorithmic registration may introduce errors due to the inherent characteristics of the algorithm itself,' but the seeding method is never identified.

full rationale

The paper is primarily a review plus a new benchmark, and the review sections are not circular: methods are surveyed from the literature and organized by resolution and mechanism, with no derivation that reduces to its own assumptions. The self-citations (HOWP, MOSS, MoTIF, etc.) are abundant but not load-bearing: the top traditional result is RIFT (external), the top deep result is XoFTR (external), and the authors' own MOSS (17.93%) and HOWP (52.63%) are evaluated with the same protocol as the others. The single defensible circularity concern is the ground-truth construction in Section 4.3: control points are selected 'based on the automatic registration results,' and the evaluation metrics in Section 5 score every algorithm against those points. Because the seeding algorithm is unnamed, the benchmark cannot be shown to be independent of the method families being compared. This is a real but partial dependency: the manual selection of corners and the one-pixel tolerance add human correction, so the ground truth is not literally the automatic output. The resolution-degradation trend is also a broad empirical pattern that would likely survive moderate ground-truth bias. Hence a moderate score of 4 rather than 6-8. If the automatic seeding method were disclosed and shown to be outside the benchmark, or if control points were re-derived from independent geodetic or photo-identifiable checkpoints, the score would drop to 1.

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

The dataset itself is a new resource, not an invented entity in the sense of a postulated physical object. The free parameters are the metric thresholds and the ground truth accuracy target, which are hand-chosen and directly affect the reported SR and NCM values. The axioms are assumptions about ground truth quality and the fairness of the evaluation protocol.

free parameters (3)
  • N_min = 20
    Minimum number of correct matches required for a pair to count as success in SR and NCM (Section 5, Equation 1).
  • RMSE threshold = 10 pixels
    Pairs with RMSE greater than 10 pixels are excluded from NCM and SR counts (Section 5).
  • Ground truth accuracy target = <=1 pixel
    Manual control points are asserted to have error within one pixel, used as the reference for RMSE (Section 4.3).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Manual visual inspection yields accurate ground truth within one pixel.
    Section 4.3 states professionals select control points and ensure error within one pixel, but no validation or inter-observer study is provided.
  • domain assumption Georeferencing provides initial alignment for optical images.
    Section 4.2 states optical image pairs were obtained through georeferencing; any residual georeferencing error becomes part of the registration problem.
  • domain assumption The 16 tested algorithms are representative state-of-the-art and their recommended parameters are appropriate.
    Section 5 states experiments used code provided by authors with recommended settings; no tuning or sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • domain assumption Automatic registration used to build ground truth does not bias the selection of control points.
    Section 4.3 says ground truth is based on automatic registration results plus manual verification, but the automatic algorithm is not named and its influence on control point placement is not quantified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-Resolution SAR and Optical Remote Sensing Image Registration Methods: A Review, Datasets, and Future Perspectives." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V4734E5C

@misc{pith2026250201002,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-Resolution SAR and Optical Remote Sensing Image Registration Methods: A Review, Datasets, and Future Perspectives},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V4734E5C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01002}
}
read the original abstract

Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) and optical image registration is essential for remote sensing data fusion, with applications in military reconnaissance, environmental monitoring, and disaster management. However, challenges arise from differences in imaging mechanisms, geometric distortions, and radiometric properties between SAR and optical images. As image resolution increases, fine SAR textures become more significant, leading to alignment issues and 3D spatial discrepancies. Two major gaps exist: the lack of a publicly available multi-resolution, multi-scene registration dataset and the absence of systematic analysis of current methods. To address this, the MultiResSAR dataset was created, containing over 10k pairs of multi-source, multi-resolution, and multi-scene SAR and optical images. Sixteen state-of-the-art algorithms were tested. Results show no algorithm achieves 100% success, and performance decreases as resolution increases, with most failing on sub-meter data. XoFTR performs best among deep learning methods (40.58%), while RIFT performs best among traditional methods (66.51%). Future research should focus on noise suppression, 3D geometric fusion, cross-view transformation modeling, and deep learning optimization for robust registration of high-resolution SAR and optical images. The dataset is available at https://github.com/betterlll/Multi-Resolution-SAR-dataset-.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Annotation-Free Open-Vocabulary Segmentation for Remote-Sensing Images

    cs.CV 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    SegEarth-OV performs annotation-free open-vocabulary segmentation of remote-sensing images by upsampling CLIP features, removing global bias, and distilling optical knowledge into a SAR encoder.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Cao, F., Shi, T., Han, K., Wang, P., & An, W. (2023). RDFM: Robust Deep Feature Matching for Multimodal Remote - Sensing Images. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 20 , 1 -

    2023

  2. [5]

    Chen, H., Luo, Z., Zhang, J., Zhou, L., Bai, X., Hu, Z., Tai, C

    https://doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2023.3309404 . Chen, H., Luo, Z., Zhang, J., Zhou, L., Bai, X., Hu, Z., Tai, C. L., & Quan, L. (2021). Learning to Match Features with Seeded Graph Matching Network. 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), Montreal, QC, Canada. Chen, J., Chen, S., Chen, X., Dai, Y ., & Yang, Y . (2022). CSR - Net: Lea...

    arXiv 2021

  3. [6]

    Chen, J., Xie, H., Zhang, L., Hu, J., Jiang, H., & Wang, G

    https://doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2021.3099307 . Chen, J., Xie, H., Zhang, L., Hu, J., Jiang, H., & Wang, G. (2023). SAR and Optical Image Registration Based on Deep Learning with Co - Attention Matching Module. Remote Sensing, 15 (15),

    arXiv 2023

  4. [10]

    Dellinger, F., Delon, J., Gousseau, Y ., Michel, J., & Tupin, F

    https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12182937 . Dellinger, F., Delon, J., Gousseau, Y ., Michel, J., & Tupin, F. (2015). SAR - SIFT: A SIFT - Like Algorithm for SAR Images. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 53 (1), 453 -

    work page doi:10.3390/rs12182937 2015

  5. [11]

    Cui, S., Ma, A., Zhang, L., Xu, M., & Zhong, Y

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2022.3165222 . Cui, S., Ma, A., Zhang, L., Xu, M., & Zhong, Y . (2022). MAP - Net: SAR and Optical Image Matching via Image - Based Convolutional Network With Attention Mechanism and Spatial Pyramid Aggregated Pooling. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 60 , 1 -

    work page arXiv 2022

  6. [12]

    Ye, Y ., Yang, C., Gong, G., Yang, P ., Quan, D., & Li, J

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2024.3379370 . Ye, Y ., Yang, C., Gong, G., Yang, P ., Quan, D., & Li, J. (2024). Robust Optical and SAR Image Matching Using Attention - Enhanced Structural Features. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 62 , 1 -

    work page arXiv 2024

  7. [13]

    Cui, S., Xu, M., Ma, A., & Zhong, Y

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2021.3066432 . Cui, S., Xu, M., Ma, A., & Zhong, Y . (2020). Modality - Free Feature Detector and Descriptor for Multimodal Remote Sensing Image Registration. Remote Sensing, 12 (18),

    arXiv 2020

  8. [14]

    Edstedt, J., Athanasiadis, I., Wadenbäck, M., & Felsberg, M

    https://doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2022.3223353 . Edstedt, J., Athanasiadis, I., Wadenbäck, M., & Felsberg, M. (2023). DKM: Dense Kernelized Feature Matching for Geometry Estimation. 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Vancouver, BC, Canada. Edstedt, J., Sun, Q., Bökman, G., Wadenbäck, M., & Felsberg, M. (2024). RoMa: Rob...

    work page arXiv 2023

Show all 83 references
  1. [15]

    Fan, Z., Pi, Y ., Wang, M., Kang, Y ., & Tan, K

    https://doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2022.3171587 . Fan, Z., Pi, Y ., Wang, M., Kang, Y ., & Tan, K. (2024). GLS – MIFT: A modality invariant feature transform with global - to - local searching. Information Fusion, 105 , 102252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2024.102252 . Fang, Y ...

    2024

  2. [16]

    Gao, T., Lan, C., Huang, W., Wang, L., Wei, Z., & Yao, F

    https://doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2021.3100531 . Gao, T., Lan, C., Huang, W., Wang, L., Wei, Z., & Yao, F. (2023). Multiscale Template Matching for Multimodal Remote Sensing Image. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 16 , 10132 - 10147....

    2023

  3. [17]

    Huang, M., Xu, Y ., Qian, L., Shi, W., Zhang, Y ., Bao, W., Wang, N., Liu, X., & Xiang, X

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2023.3328368 . Huang, M., Xu, Y ., Qian, L., Shi, W., Zhang, Y ., Bao, W., Wang, N., Liu, X., & Xiang, X. (2021). The QXS - SAROPT Dataset for Deep Learning in SAR - Optical Data Fusion. arXiv preprint arXiv , 2103.08259. Hughes, L. H., Marcos, D.,...

    2021

  4. [18]

    https://doi.org/10.1111/0031 - 868X.00110 . Du, W. L., Zhou, Y ., Zhao, J., & Tian, X. (2020). K - Means Clustering Guided Generative Adversarial Networks for SAR - Optical Image Matching. IEEE Access, 8 , 217554 - 217572. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3042213 . Du, W. L...

    2020

  5. [20]

    Sarlin, P

    https://doi.org/10.1080/10095020.2024.2354226 . Sarlin, P. E., DeTone, D., Malisiewicz, T., & Rabinovich, A. (2020). SuperGlue: Learning Feature Matching With Graph Neural Networks. 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Seattle, WA, USA. S...

    2020

  6. [23]

    Li, L., Han, L., Gao, K., He, H., Wang, L., & Li, J

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2022.3165940 . Li, L., Han, L., Gao, K., He, H., Wang, L., & Li, J. (2023). Coarse - to - fine matching via cross fusion of satellite images. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 125 , 103574. https://doi.org/10.10...

    2023

  7. [24]

    Li, L., Liu, M., Ma, L., & Han, L

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2023.3330856 . Li, L., Liu, M., Ma, L., & Han, L. (2022). Cross - Modal feature description for remote sensing image matching. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 112 , 102964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2022.1...

    2022

  8. [28]

    Li, Z., Zhang, H., & Huang, Y

    https://doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2022.3188010 . Li, Z., Zhang, H., & Huang, Y . (2021). A Rotation - Invariant Optical and SAR Image Registration Algorithm Based on Deep and Gaussian Features. Remote Sensing, 13 (13),

    2021

  9. [33]

    Liu, Y ., He, W., & Zhang, H

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2023.3321791 . Liu, Y ., He, W., & Zhang, H. (2024). GRiD: Guided Refinement for Detector - Free Multimodal Image Matching. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 33 , 5892 -

    2024

  10. [34]

    Nie, H., Fu, Z., Tang, B

    https://doi.org/10.1111/phor.12402 . Nie, H., Fu, Z., Tang, B. - H., Li, Z., Chen, S., & Wang, L. (2022). A Dual - Generator Translation Network Fusing Texture and Structure Features for SAR and Optical Image Matching. Remote Sensing, 14 (12),

    2022 doi

  11. [35]

    Lv, N., Han, Z., Zhou, H., Chen, C., Wan, S., & Su, T

    https://doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2023.3298687 . Lv, N., Han, Z., Zhou, H., Chen, C., Wan, S., & Su, T. (2024). Prominent Structure - Guided Feature Representation for SAR and Optical Image Registration. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 21 , 1 -

    2024

  12. [36]

    Maggiolo, L., Solarna, D., Moser, G., & Serpico, S

    https://doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2024.3403855 . Maggiolo, L., Solarna, D., Moser, G., & Serpico, S. B. (2020). Automatic Area - Based Registration of Optical and SAR Images Through Generative Adversarial Networks and a Correlation - Type Metric. IGARSS 2020 - 2020 IEEE Internation...

    2020

  13. [41]

    Ö, T., Köksal, A., Sofu, B., Kalkan, S., & Alatan, A

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2024.3452929 . Ö, T., Köksal, A., Sofu, B., Kalkan, S., & Alatan, A. A. (2024). XoFTR: Cross - modal Feature Matching Transformer. 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), Seattle, WA, USA. Paul, S., & ...

    2024

  14. [43]

    Ren, K., Sun, W., Meng, X., Yang, G., Peng, J., Chen, B., & Li, J

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2023.3306042 . Ren, K., Sun, W., Meng, X., Yang, G., Peng, J., Chen, B., & Li, J. (2023). A robust and accurate feature matching method for multi - modal geographic images spatial registration. Geo - spatial Information Science , 1 -

    2023

  15. [47]

    Tomiyasu, K

    https://doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2024.3402982 . Tomiyasu, K. (1978). Tutorial review of synthetic - aperture radar (SAR) with applications to imaging of the ocean surface. Proceedings of the IEEE, 66 (5), 563 -

    1978

  16. [49]

    Wang, Y ., He, X., Peng, S., Tan, D., & Zhou, X

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2021.3074630 . Wang, Y ., He, X., Peng, S., Tan, D., & Zhou, X. (2024). Efficient LoFTR: Semi - Dense Local Feature Matching with Sparse - Like Speed. 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Seattle, WA, USA. Wan...

    2024

  17. [51]

    Wu, W., Xian, Y ., Su, J., & Ren, L

    https://doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2024.3451524 . Wu, W., Xian, Y ., Su, J., & Ren, L. (2022). A Siamese Template Matching Method for SAR and Optical Image. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 19 , 1 -

    2022

  18. [52]

    Xiang, D., Xie, Y ., Cheng, J., Xu, Y ., Zhang, H., & Zheng, Y

    https://doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2021.3108579 . Xiang, D., Xie, Y ., Cheng, J., Xu, Y ., Zhang, H., & Zheng, Y . (2022). Optical and SAR Image Registration Based on Feature Decoupling Network. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 60 , 1 -

    2022

  19. [53]

    Xiang, D., Xu, Y ., Cheng, J., Xie, Y ., & Guan, D

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2022.3211858 . Xiang, D., Xu, Y ., Cheng, J., Xie, Y ., & Guan, D. (2023). Progressive Keypoint Detection With Dense Siamese Network for SAR Image Registration. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 59 (5), 5847 -

    2023

  20. [55]

    Xiang, Y ., Jiao, N., Wang, F., & You, H

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2024.3409750 . Xiang, Y ., Jiao, N., Wang, F., & You, H. (2022). A Robust Two - Stage Registration Algorithm for Large Optical and SAR Images. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 60 , 1 -

    2022

  21. [56]

    Xiang, Y ., Tao, R., Wang, F., You, H., & Han, B

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2021.3133863 . Xiang, Y ., Tao, R., Wang, F., You, H., & Han, B. (2020). Automatic Registration of Optical and SAR Images Via Improved Phase Congruency Model. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 13 , 5847 -

    2020

  22. [60]

    Xiong, X., Jin, G., Xu, Q., Zhang, H., Wang, L., & Wu, K

    https://doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2024.3398725 . Xiong, X., Jin, G., Xu, Q., Zhang, H., Wang, L., & Wu, K. (2022). Robust Registration Algorithm for Optical and SAR Images Based on Adjacent Self - Similarity Feature. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 60 , 1 -

    2022

  23. [61]

    Xu, H., He, M., Rao, Z., & Li, W

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2022.3197357 . Xu, H., He, M., Rao, Z., & Li, W. (2021). Him - Net: A New Neural Network Approach for SAR and Optical Image Template Matching1. 2021 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), Anchorage, AK, USA. Xu, W., Yuan, X., Hu,...

    2021

  24. [62]

    Yang, W., Yao, Y ., Zhang, Y ., & Wan, Y

    https://doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2024.3351158 . Yang, W., Yao, Y ., Zhang, Y ., & Wan, Y . (2023). Weak texture remote sensing image matching based on hybrid domain features and adaptive description method. The Photogrammetric Record, 38 (184), 537 -

    2023

  25. [66]

    Ye, Y ., Yang, C., Zhang, J., Fan, J., Feng, R., & Qin, Y

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2024.3366247 . Ye, Y ., Yang, C., Zhang, J., Fan, J., Feng, R., & Qin, Y . (2022). Optical - to - SAR Image Matching Using Multiscale Masked Structure Features. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 19 , 1 -

    2022

  26. [67]

    Ye, Y ., Yang, C., Zhu, B., Zhou, L., He, Y ., & Jia, H

    https://doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2022.3171265 . Ye, Y ., Yang, C., Zhu, B., Zhou, L., He, Y ., & Jia, H. (2021). Improving Co - Registration for Sentinel - 1 SAR and Sentinel - 2 Optical Images. Remote Sensing, 13 (5),

    2021

  27. [69]

    Yu, Q., Jiang, Y ., Zhao, W., & Sun, T

    https://doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2021.3088856 . Yu, Q., Jiang, Y ., Zhao, W., & Sun, T. (2022). High - Precision Pixelwise SAR – Optical Image Registration via Flow Fusion Estimation Based on an Attention Mechanism. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and...

    2022

  28. [71]

    Yu, Q., Zhao, W., Jiang, Y ., Wang, R., & Xiao, J

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2020.10.019 . Yu, Q., Zhao, W., Jiang, Y ., Wang, R., & Xiao, J. (2022). A Robust Descriptor Based on Modality - Independent Neighborhood Information for Optical - SAR Image Matching. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 19 , 1 -

    2022 doi

  29. [72]

    Zeng, L., Du, Y ., Lin, H., Wang, J., Yin, J., & Yang, J

    https://doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2022.3211271 . Zeng, L., Du, Y ., Lin, H., Wang, J., Yin, J., & Yang, J. (2021). A Novel Region - Based Image Registration Method for Multisource Remote Sensing Images Via CNN. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remot...

    2021

  30. [74]

    Zhang, H., Lei, L., Ni, W., Cheng, K., Tang, T., Wang, P., & Kuang, G

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2023.3309855 . Zhang, H., Lei, L., Ni, W., Cheng, K., Tang, T., Wang, P., & Kuang, G. (2023). Registration of Large Optical and SAR Images with Non - Flat Terrain by Investigating Reliable Sparse Correspondences. Remote Sensing, 15 (18),

    2023

  31. [76]

    Zhang, H., Lei, L., Ni, W., Tang, T., Wu, J., Xiang, D., & Kuang, G

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2021.3126939 . Zhang, H., Lei, L., Ni, W., Tang, T., Wu, J., Xiang, D., & Kuang, G. (2022b). Optical and SAR Image Matching Using Pixelwise Deep Dense Features. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 19 , 1 -

    2022

  32. [77]

    Zhang, H., Lei, L., Ni, W., Yang, X., Tang, T., Cheng, K., Xiang, D., & Kuang, G

    https://doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2020.3039473 . Zhang, H., Lei, L., Ni, W., Yang, X., Tang, T., Cheng, K., Xiang, D., & Kuang, G. (2023). Optical and SAR Image Dense Registration Using a Robust Deep Optical Flow Framework. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observati...

    2023

  33. [79]

    Zhang, X., Wang, X., Han, C., Mu, J., & Gou, S

    https://doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2020.3043025 . Zhang, X., Wang, X., Han, C., Mu, J., & Gou, S. (2023). Feature Adversarial Network for Multimodal Template Matching. IGARSS 2023 - 2023 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, Zhang, Y ., Yao, Y ., Wan, Y ., Liu,...

    2023

  34. [80]

    Zhang, Y ., Zhang, W., Yao, Y ., Zheng, Z., Wan, Y ., & Xiong, M

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2022.12.018 . Zhang, Y ., Zhang, W., Yao, Y ., Zheng, Z., Wan, Y ., & Xiong, M. (2024). Robust registration of multi - modal remote sensing images based on multi - dimensional oriented self - similarity features. International Journal of App...

    2024

  35. [81]

    Zhao, X., Wu, Y ., Hu, X., Li, Z., & Li, M

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2022.3170316 . Zhao, X., Wu, Y ., Hu, X., Li, Z., & Li, M. (2024). A Novel Dual - Branch Global and Local Feature Extraction Network for SAR and Optical Image Registration. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Se...

    2024

  36. [82]

    Zhou, L., Ye, Y ., Tang, T., Nan, K., & Qin, Y

    https://doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2023.3292821 . Zhou, L., Ye, Y ., Tang, T., Nan, K., & Qin, Y . (2022). Robust Matching for SAR and Optical Images Using Multiscale Convolutional Gradient Features. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 19 , 1 -

    2022

  37. [83]

    Zou, W., Li, Z., & Ding, X

    https://doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2021.3105567 . Zou, W., Li, Z., & Ding, X. (2007). Determination of optimum window size for SAR image co - registration with decomposition of auto - correlation. The Photogrammetric Record, 22 (119), 238 -

    2007

  38. [88]

    Li, J., Xu, W., Shi, P., Zhang, Y ., & Hu, Q

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2023.08.010 . Li, J., Xu, W., Shi, P., Zhang, Y ., & Hu, Q. (2022). LNIFT: Locally Normalized Image for Rotation Invariant Multimodal Feature Matching. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 60 , 1 -

    2022 doi

  39. [105]

    Ye, Y ., Wang, Q., Zhao, H., Teng, X., Bian, Y ., & Li, Z. (2024). Fast and Robust Optical - to - SAR Remote Sensing Image Registration Using Region - Aware Phase Descriptor. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 62 , 1 -

    2024

  40. [146]

    Song, D., Liu, L., Zhang, X., Qin, K., & Wang, L. (2022). A Novel Hog - Based Template Matching Method for SAR and Optical Image. IGARSS 2022 - 2022 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, Lumpur, Malaysia. Sun, J., Shen, Z., Wang, Y ., Bao, H., & Zhou, X. ...

    2022

  41. [160]

    Schmitt, M., Hughes, L

    https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs - annals - IV - 2 - W7 - 153 - 2019 . Schmitt, M., Hughes, L. H., & Zhu, X. X. (2018). The SEN1 - 2 Dataset for Deep Learning in SAR - Optical Data Fusion. ISPRS Ann Photogramm Remote Sens Spatial Inf Sci, IV - 1 , 141 –

    2018 doi

  42. [179]

    Hughes, L

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2020.09.012 . Hughes, L. H., Schmitt, M., & Zhu, X. X. (2018). Mining Hard Negative Samples for SAR - Optical Image Matching Using Generative Adversarial Networks. Remote Sensing, 10 (10),

    2018 doi

  43. [256]

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477 - 9730.2007.00443.x

    2007

  44. [286]

    Liu, Y ., He, W., & Zhang, H

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2023.10.003 . Liu, Y ., He, W., & Zhang, H. (2023). GLoCNet: Robust Feature Matching With Global – Local Consistency Network for Remote Sensing Image Registration. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 61 , 1 -

    2023 doi

  45. [331]

    Li, J., Hu, Q., & Ai, M

    https://doi.org/10.1111/phor.12201 . Li, J., Hu, Q., & Ai, M. (2020). RIFT: Multi - Modal Image Matching Based on Radiation - Variation Insensitive Feature Transform. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 29 , 3296 -

    2020 doi

  46. [457]

    Chen, J., Fan, X., Chen, S., Yang, Y ., & Bai, H

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2022.10.030 . Chen, J., Fan, X., Chen, S., Yang, Y ., & Bai, H. (2022). Robust Feature Matching via Hierarchical Local Structure Visualization. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 19 , 1 -

    2022 doi

  47. [462]

    Lin, M., Liu, B., Liu, Y ., & Wang, Q

    https://doi.org/10.1109/JSTARS.2021.3134676 . Lin, M., Liu, B., Liu, Y ., & Wang, Q. (2023). A CNN - Transformer Hybrid Feature Descriptor for Optical - SAR Image Registration. IGARSS 2023 - 2023 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, Pasadena, CA, USA. Li...

    2023

  48. [466]

    Deng, Y ., & Ma, J

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2014.2323552 . Deng, Y ., & Ma, J. (2023). ReDFeat: Recoupling Detection and Description for Multimodal Feature Learning. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 32 , 591 -

    2023

  49. [562]

    Yao, Y ., Zhang, B., Wan, Y ., & Zhang, Y

    https://doi.org/10.1111/phor.12464 . Yao, Y ., Zhang, B., Wan, Y ., & Zhang, Y . (2022). Motif: Multi - Orientation Tensor Index Feature Descriptor for Sar - Optical Image Registration. Remote Sensing Spatial Information Sciences, XLIII - B2 - 2022 , 99 -

    2022 doi

  50. [583]

    Wang, L., Liang, H., Wang, Z., Xu, R., & Shi, G

    https://doi.org10.1109/PROC.1978.10961 . Wang, L., Liang, H., Wang, Z., Xu, R., & Shi, G. (2023). CFOG - like image registration algorithm based on 3D - structural feature descriptor for suburban optical and SAR. Optik, 272 , 170158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijleo.2022.170158...

    2023

  51. [602]

    Dowman, I

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2022.3231135 . Dowman, I. J. (1998). Automating Image Registration and Absolute Orientation: Solutions and Problems. The Photogrammetric Record, 16 (91), 5 -

    1998

  52. [630]

    Li, S., Lv, X., Wang, H., & Li, J

    https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14030630 . Li, S., Lv, X., Wang, H., & Li, J. (2023). A Novel Fast and Robust Multimodal Images Matching Method Based on Primary Structure - Weighted Orientation Consistency. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sen...

    2023 doi

  53. [928]

    Yu, K., Zheng, X., Duan, Y ., Fang, B., An, P., & Ma, J

    https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13050928 . Yu, K., Zheng, X., Duan, Y ., Fang, B., An, P., & Ma, J. (2022). NCFT: Automatic Matching of Multimodal Image Based on Nonlinear Consistent Feature Transform. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 19 , 1 -

    2022 doi

  54. [1294]

    Zhang, H., Y ue, Y ., Li, H., Liu, P., Jia, Y ., He, W., & Wang, Z

    https://doi.org/10.1109/JSTARS.2023.3235535 . Zhang, H., Y ue, Y ., Li, H., Liu, P., Jia, Y ., He, W., & Wang, Z. (2024). Shared contents alignment across multiple granularities for robust SAR - optical image matching. Information Fusion, 106 , 102298. https://doi.org/10.1016/...

    2024

  55. [1331]

    Potje, G., Cadar, F., Araujo, A., Martins, R., & Nascimento, E

    https://doi.org/10.1049/ipr2.12107 . Potje, G., Cadar, F., Araujo, A., Martins, R., & Nascimento, E. R. (2024). XFeat: Accelerated Features for Lightweight Image Matching. 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Seattle, WA, USA. Quan, D., W...

    2024 doi

  56. [1552]

    James, L., Nidamanuri, R

    https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10101552 . James, L., Nidamanuri, R. R., Krishnan, S. M., Anjaneyulu, R., & Srinivas, C. (2023). A Novel Approach for SAR to Optical Image Registration using Deep Learning. 2023 International Conference on Machine Intelligence for GeoAnalytics and Rem...

    2023 doi

  57. [1820]

    Mohammadi, N., Sedaghat, A., & Jodeiri Rad, M

    https://doi.org/10.1109/JSTARS.2018.2803212 . Mohammadi, N., Sedaghat, A., & Jodeiri Rad, M. (2022). Rotation - Invariant Self - Similarity Descriptor for Multi - Temporal Remote Sensing Image Registration. The Photogrammetric Record, 37 (177), 6 -

    2022

  58. [1831]

    Zhang, H., Lei, L., Ni, W., & al, e

    https://doi.org/10.1109/JSTARS.2020.3047656 . Zhang, H., Lei, L., Ni, W., & al, e. (2021). A Global - to - Local Algorithm for High - Resolution Optical and SAR Image Registration. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 60 , 1 -

    2021

  59. [2628]

    Li, Z., Zhang, H., Huang, Y ., & Li, H

    https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13132628 . Li, Z., Zhang, H., Huang, Y ., & Li, H. (2022). A Robust Strategy for Large - Size Optical and SAR Image Registration. Remote Sensing, 14 (13),

    2022 doi

  60. [2811]

    Merkle, N., Auer, S., Müller, R., & Reinartz, P

    https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14122811 . Merkle, N., Auer, S., Müller, R., & Reinartz, P. (2018). Exploring the Potential of Conditional Adversarial Networks for Optical and SAR Image Matching. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 11 (6...

    2018 doi

  61. [2937]

    Chen, S., Chen, J., Rao, Y ., Chen, X., Fan, X., Bai, H., Xing, L., Zhou, C., & Yang, Y

    https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15153879 . Chen, S., Chen, J., Rao, Y ., Chen, X., Fan, X., Bai, H., Xing, L., Zhou, C., & Yang, Y . (2022). A Hierarchical Consensus Attention Network for Feature Matching of Remote Sensing Images. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 60 , 1 -

    2022 doi

  62. [2946]

    Nie, H., Luo, B., Liu, J., Fu, Z., Liu, W., Wang, C., & Su, X

    https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14122946 . Nie, H., Luo, B., Liu, J., Fu, Z., Liu, W., Wang, C., & Su, X. (2024). A Novel Rotation and Scale Equivariant Network for Optical - SAR Image Matching. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 62 , 1 -

    2024 doi

  63. [3012]

    Liaghat, A., Helfroush, M

    https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14133012 . Liaghat, A., Helfroush, M. S., Norouzi, J., & Danyali, H. (2023). Airborne SAR to Optical Image Registration Based on SAR Georeferencing and Deep Learning Approach. IEEE Sensors Journal, 23 (21), 26446 - 26458. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN....

    2023

  64. [3090]

    Xiang, Y ., Wang, X., Wang, F., You, H., Qiu, X., & Fu, K

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2018.2790483 . Xiang, Y ., Wang, X., Wang, F., You, H., Qiu, X., & Fu, K. (2023). A Global - to - Local Algorithm for High - Resolution Optical and SAR Image Registration. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 61 , 1 -

    2023

  65. [3210]

    Chen, J., Chen, S., Chen, X., Yang, Y ., & Rao, Y

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2022.3166284 . Chen, J., Chen, S., Chen, X., Yang, Y ., & Rao, Y . (2023). StateNet: Deep State Learning for Robust Feature Matching of Remote Sensing Images. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 34 (7), 3284 -

    2023

  66. [3298]

    Chen, J., Chen, X., Chen, S., Liu, Y ., Rao, Y ., Yang, Y ., Wang, H., & Wu, D

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS.2021.3120768 . Chen, J., Chen, X., Chen, S., Liu, Y ., Rao, Y ., Yang, Y ., Wang, H., & Wu, D. (2023). Shape - Former: Bridging CNN and Transformer via ShapeConv for multimodal image matching. Information Fusion, 91 , 445 -

    2023

  67. [3310]

    Li, J., Hu, Q., & Zhang, Y

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2019.2959244 . Li, J., Hu, Q., & Zhang, Y . (2023). Multimodal image matching: A scale - invariant algorithm and an open dataset. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 204 , 77 -

    2023

  68. [3971]

    Yu, Q., Ni, D., Jiang, Y ., Yan, Y ., An, J., & Sun, T

    https://doi.org/10.1109/JSTARS.2022.3172449 . Yu, Q., Ni, D., Jiang, Y ., Yan, Y ., An, J., & Sun, T. (2021). Universal SAR and optical image registration via a novel SIFT framework based on nonlinear diffusion and a polar spatial - frequency descriptor. ISPRS Journal of Photo...

    2021

  69. [4458]

    Zhang, H., Lei, L., Ni, W., Tang, T., Wu, J., Xiang, D., & Kuang, G

    https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15184458 . Zhang, H., Lei, L., Ni, W., Tang, T., Wu, J., Xiang, D., & Kuang, G. (2022a). Explore Better Network Framework for High - Resolution Optical and SAR Image Matching. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 60 , 1 -

    2022 doi

  70. [5060]

    Wu, W., Ning, C., Guo, J., Zhang, T., & Jia, X

    https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14195060 . Wu, W., Ning, C., Guo, J., Zhang, T., & Jia, X. (2024). Two - Stage Registration for Optical and SAR Images With Combined Features and Graph Neural Networks. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 21 , 1 -

    2024 doi

  71. [5858]

    Xiang, Y ., Jiang, L., Wang, F., You, H., Qiu, X., & Fu, K

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TAES.2023.3266415 . Xiang, Y ., Jiang, L., Wang, F., You, H., Qiu, X., & Fu, K. (2024). Detector - Free Feature Matching for Optical and SAR Images Based on a Two - Step Strategy. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 62 , 1 -

    2024

  72. [5861]

    Xiang, Y ., Wang, F., & You, H

    https://doi.org/10.1109/JSTARS.2020.3026162 . Xiang, Y ., Wang, F., & You, H. (2018). OS - SIFT: A Robust SIFT - Like Algorithm for High - Resolution Optical - to - SAR Image Registration in Suburban Areas. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 56 (6), 3078 -

    2018

  73. [5906]

    Liu, Y ., Qi, H., & Peng, S

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2024.3472491 . Liu, Y ., Qi, H., & Peng, S. (2023). Optical and SAR Images Matching Based on Phase Structure Convolutional Features. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 20 , 1 -

    2023

  74. [5989]

    Li, Z., Zhang, H., Chen, J., & Huang, Y

    https://doi.org/10.3390/app12125989 . Li, Z., Zhang, H., Chen, J., & Huang, Y . (2022). Robust Optical and SAR Image Registration Based on Phase Congruency Scale Space. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 19 , 1 -

    2022 doi

  75. [9927]

    Li, X., Guo, L., Li, Y ., Han, L., Sun, G., Xiong, T., & Xing, M

    https://doi.org/10.1109/JSTARS.2023.3325577 . Li, X., Guo, L., Li, Y ., Han, L., Sun, G., Xiong, T., & Xing, M. (2021). Fast Rotation Matching Method for SAR and Optical Images. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 14 , 11508 - 1151...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.