Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 51 references

FedRS-Bench: Realistic Federated Learning Datasets and Benchmarks in Remote Sensing

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read FedRS-Bench claims the first realistic federated benchmark for remote sensing, with 135 single-source clients, and reports that federated training consistently beats isolated local training.

desk verdict FedRS is a genuinely useful FL benchmark for remote sensing, but the paper's evaluation protocol and an unstated train/test disjointness assumption need fixing before the headline numbers can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08325 v1 pith:T3WU77EF submitted 2025-05-13 cs.LG cs.AI

Haodong Zhao , Peng Peng , Chiyu Chen , Linqing Huang , Gongshen Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords federatedlearningremotesensingbenchmarkdatasetdataheterogeneitydomainshiftpartialclientparticipationsceneclassificationFedRS
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 introduces FedRS, a federated-learning dataset assembled from eight existing remote-sensing scene-classification corpora, repartitioned into 135 clients with a single data source per client and a unified 15-class label scheme. The authors claim this is the first realistic FL benchmark for remote sensing, because prior work split a single dataset artificially, whereas FedRS inherits skewed label distributions, imbalanced client sizes, and sensor- and region-level domain shifts. They benchmark ten FL algorithms against local-only and centralized training, reporting that every federated method beats the average local model in every tested configuration while no single method wins everywhere. The benchmark is positioned as a standard testbed so future FL-for-RS work can be compared fairly.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing construction is the 'same client, same source' partition: each of the 135 clients receives images from exactly one of eight source datasets (NaSC-TG2, WHU-RS19, EuroSAT, AID, NWPU-RESISC45, UCM, OPTIMAL-31, RSD46-WHU), after all labels are mapped to 15 unified semantic categories and all images are resized to 64x64. Two training partitions are derived, NIID-1 via Dirichlet allocation and NIID-2 via uniform source-based allocation, and two test sets are sampled, an imbalanced set TI reflecting source proportions and a balanced set TB with 10 images per category-source cell. This machinery creates realistic client skew and domain shift in a controlled, reproducible way, and the benchmark protocols, with 10 clients sampled per round, 500 rounds, CNN and ResNet18 models, and hyperparameters held at published values, turn those properties into comparable accuracy numbers.

What would settle it

Run a perceptual-hash or exact-duplicate scan across all FedRS client training images and both test sets; if any image appears on both sides, recompute the headline FL-versus-local numbers with that image removed, because duplicates would inflate the reported margins.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a global federated model trained on genuinely multi-source remote-sensing data consistently outperforms models trained independently on each client's silo, despite severe heterogeneity: on FedRS with ResNet18, FedAvg reaches 62.26% on the imbalanced test set versus 20.57% for the local average, and similar gaps appear across CNN and ResNet18, both partitions, and both test sets. A second discovery is that no algorithm dominates: SCAFFOLD is best with ResNet18 but not with CNN; MOON and FedAvg lead with CNN; and FedDC and FedDyn collapse with ResNet18, showing that methods proposed under milder heterogeneity can lose stability on realistic data. The paper therefore positions FedRS-Bench as the first standardized realistic federation testbed for remote sensing, with two non-IID partitions and an imbalanced and a balanced test set.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark's accuracy numbers are only as valid as the claim that no image appears both in a client's training data and in the TI or TB test sets, and that the eight source datasets contain no duplicate images.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A researcher evaluating a new FL method on FedRS can compare against ten baseline algorithms under identical data partitions and test sets, removing the apples-to-oranges problem that currently blocks comparison across FL-in-RS papers.
  • Federated collaboration is worthwhile even under extreme heterogeneity: every benchmarked FL method beat the average locally trained model in every setting, so data-sharing constraints need not force isolated silo models.
  • Method rankings are not transferable across architectures: a method can be the best with ResNet18 and near-worst with a CNN, so benchmark claims need to report both.
  • Advanced optimization methods such as SCAFFOLD, FedDC, and FedDyn can fail to converge on this realistic heterogeneity, warning that convergence behavior seen in simpler settings does not carry over.
  • Differential privacy costs accuracy: user-level DP on FedAvg shows the largest gap below non-private methods, quantifying the price of provable privacy on remote-sensing data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension the authors do not run: vary the participation rate from 10-of-135 to full participation to see whether SCAFFOLD, FedDC, and FedDyn collapse is caused by sparse client sampling or by label and domain skew alone.
  • Because each client is single-source, FedRS can be reused as a domain-adaptation testbed: one can treat each source as a domain and directly measure how much of FL's gain comes from bridging sensor and region shift rather than from label averaging.
  • The paper's no-overlap claim could be audited by publishing image hashes; the current test-set description as 20% of each source does not explicitly exclude client-training images, so the benchmark would be strengthened by an explicit train-test disjointness certificate.
  • If the dataset is adopted, personalized federated learning methods should be a natural target: clients within the same source could form a testbed for clustering or personalized aggregation under known source membership.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces FedRS, a federated learning dataset for remote sensing built from eight existing datasets (EuroSAT, AID, NWPU-RESISC45, UCM, NaSC-TG2, WHU-RS19, OPTIMAL-31, RSD46-WHU), with 135 clients where each client holds data from a single source and labels are remapped into 15 unified semantic categories. The authors also construct a simpler five-class subset, FedRS-5, and evaluate 10 federated learning algorithms plus local and centralized baselines under two partition schemes (NIID-1 and NIID-2) and two test sets (imbalanced TI and balanced TB). The main empirical claim is that federated learning consistently outperforms isolated local training, while no single FL algorithm dominates across settings.

Significance. If the dataset construction is sound and the generated partitions are released with the tooling, FedRS-Bench would fill a genuine gap: a realistic, multi-source, large-client-count federated benchmark for remote sensing, complementing existing benchmarks like FLamby and FLAIR. The source-based partitioning is a principled way to produce realistic heterogeneity, and the paper includes substantial supporting documentation (label mappings, client statistics, t-SNE analyses). The authors also provide code and a dataset release, which supports reproducibility. However, the quantitative claims about FL superiority are currently undermined by evaluation-protocol choices that structurally disadvantage the local baseline, and by unresolved ambiguity about train/test separation. The dataset contribution itself is potentially valuable, but the benchmark conclusions need to be placed on a sounder footing before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4.1, Table 3] The Local Avg baseline is evaluated on the global test sets TI and TB, which contain all 15 unified categories, but many clients have training data for only a subset of those classes (e.g., EuroSAT clients cover 8 classes, NaSC-TG2 clients 7 classes, as stated in §3.3). A local model cannot classify classes it never observed, so its accuracy on the global test set is artificially bounded below regardless of its true quality. The reported gap between FL and Local Avg (e.g., 62.26% vs 20.57% for ResNet18 on FedRS NIID-1 TI) is therefore inflated by construction. The paper should evaluate each local model only on the test images whose classes are present in that client's training data (and average over clients with appropriate weighting), or report a separate local baseline evaluated on per-client test splits. Without this, the headline claim that federation is consistently superior is not established.
  2. [§3.2 and §4.1] The paper does not explicitly state that the official test splits of the eight source datasets were excluded before the 135 clients were built. Section 3.2 says 'Each client has a non-overlapping subset of the data,' and Section 4.1 says TI and TB are 'derived from the original test sets,' but it is never stated that client construction used only the training portions of EuroSAT, AID, NWPU-RESISC45, UCM, OPTIMAL-31, RSD46-WHU, WHU-RS19, and NaSC-TG2. If any test image was assigned to a client, then training data and test data overlap, and every reported accuracy is invalid because label information leaks into training. The authors must state the exact reservation procedure for test splits, publish the client-to-image mapping, and ideally include a hash-based verification that the intersection between client training sets and TI/TB is empty.
  3. [§3.2] The client count is internally inconsistent. The text reads: 'EuroSAT contributes 45 clients, AID 15 clients, RSD46-WHU 35 clients, NaSC-TG2 34 clients, NWPU-RESISC45 12 clients, AID 5 clients, UCM 2 clients and the remaining 2 clients are from WHU-RS19 and OPTIMAL-31.' This lists AID twice (15 and 5) and sums to 150 clients, not 135. Table 2 lists AID with 5 clients, WHU-RS19 with 1, and OPTIMAL-31 with 1, which sums to 135. This discrepancy must be corrected, because the number of clients is a central claim of the benchmark.
  4. [§3.2] The claim that each client holds data from a single 'source' is not verifiable for the datasets that are said to be split by known metadata. The paper says 'For datasets that are inherently multi-source, we try to use known metadata, including regions/cities/countries to split by source,' but AID, NWPU-RESISC45, and RSD46-WHU do not publicly provide per-image source metadata. Without describing how the authors determined each image's source (or providing the actual source labels), the central property of FedRS—that each client is a single coherent source—cannot be checked. Please specify the exact algorithm and data used for these splits, and release the source labels for each client.
  5. [§4.2 and Table 3] The text states that Table 3 reports 'the final best accuracy of each method.' If 'best accuracy' means the maximum test accuracy over the 500 communication rounds, then the reported numbers are not the performance of the final model and can differ substantially from the model that a user would actually deploy at round 500. This cherry-picking of the best round overstates method performance and makes comparative claims unreliable, especially for unstable methods such as FedDC and FedDyn, whose curves collapse in some scenarios. Report the accuracy at the final round (or the mean over a final window of rounds) in addition to any best-round value, and state clearly which quantity is tabulated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.1] The description of TI construction is quantitatively unclear. The paper says 'we extracted 20% from each source dataset to compose TI,' then gives examples of 'UCM images (300 images, 15 classes, 20 per class)' and 'EuroSAT images (4,800 images, 7 classes, 400–1,000 per class).' For UCM (2,100 images total, 21 classes), 20% of the full dataset would be 420 images, not 300; for EuroSAT (27,000 images total), 20% would be 5,400, not 4,800. Please clarify whether the 20% is taken from the official test splits, from each class, or from the whole dataset, and provide the exact sampling procedure and resulting image counts.
  2. [Table 5] Several source datasets are marked '-' for some unified categories (e.g., Airport for NaSC-TG2 and UCM). The paper explains that a manual review selected 15 conflict-free categories, but it does not say how many images from the original datasets were excluded because their labels did not map to these categories. Reporting the discarded counts would help readers understand the extent of label harmonization and its effect on the final dataset.
  3. [Figures 2 and 6] The t-SNE axis labels render as long strings of hexadecimal-like tokens (e.g., '/uni00000019/uni00000013'). This is likely a font/encoding artifact, but as displayed in the PDF the figures are unreadable. The x- and y-axis tick labels should be removed or properly rendered.
  4. [Appendix B.1] Appendix B.1 reasserts that there is 'no data overlap between' the eight datasets, but this statement addresses inter-dataset duplication only. It does not address whether the client partitions overlap with the test sets, which is the more critical separation for the benchmark. Please add an explicit sentence confirming that client training partitions are disjoint from TI and TB, or provide the verification I requested in the major comments.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the benchmark results are empirical rather than derived from the dataset definition, though test/train disjointness needs explicit documentation.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation chain is dataset construction followed by empirical benchmarking; there is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz smuggled in via self-citation. The claim that FL outperforms local training is an experimental result, not a quantity forced by the dataset definition: the same benchmark shows some algorithms collapsing on ResNet18 (FedDC, FedDyn), so the outcome is not built into the protocol. The only noteworthy ambiguity is that Section 4.1 says TI and TB are 'derived from the original test sets' while Section 3.2 describes partitioning the eight source datasets into 135 clients, and the paper never explicitly states that the official test splits were excluded before client construction. If they were not excluded, the reported accuracies would be invalid due to leakage; this is a reproducibility/validity concern to be clarified, not circular reasoning. Self-citations such as [6] and [23] are peripheral and not load-bearing for the benchmark's conclusions.

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

The benchmark rests on manual design choices (15 categories, 64x64 resolution, source-based client mapping) and on assumptions about data non-overlap and test/train independence. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Dirichlet concentration parameter for NIID-1 = not reported
    Controls the label skew in the NIID-1 partition; not stated in Section 3.2, making the exact client distributions unreproducible.
  • Number of unified semantic categories = 15
    Chosen by manual review to harmonize overlapping labels across eight datasets (Section 3.1, Table 5).
  • Image resolution after preprocessing = 64x64
    All images resized to 64x64 to unify varying native resolutions (Section 3.1).
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The eight constituent datasets are non-overlapping and their labels can be mapped onto 15 unified categories without ambiguity.
    Stated in Section 3.1 and Table 5; if labels are misaligned, the benchmark's ground truth is corrupted.
  • domain assumption Random 20% per-source test samples are disjoint from the client training partitions and representative of each source distribution.
    Test set construction in Section 4.1; no explicit exclusion of client training data from TI/TB is described.
  • ad hoc to paper A model trained only on a client's local data can be meaningfully evaluated on the global test set including classes the client never observed.
    Local Avg baseline evaluation protocol, Section 4.1; this assumption is questionable and inflates the advantage of FL.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FedRS-Bench: Realistic Federated Learning Datasets and Benchmarks in Remote Sensing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T3WU77EF

@misc{pith2026250508325,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FedRS-Bench: Realistic Federated Learning Datasets and Benchmarks in Remote Sensing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T3WU77EF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08325}
}
read the original abstract

Remote sensing (RS) images are usually produced at an unprecedented scale, yet they are geographically and institutionally distributed, making centralized model training challenging due to data-sharing restrictions and privacy concerns. Federated learning (FL) offers a solution by enabling collaborative model training across decentralized RS data sources without exposing raw data. However, there lacks a realistic federated dataset and benchmark in RS. Prior works typically rely on manually partitioned single dataset, which fail to capture the heterogeneity and scale of real-world RS data, and often use inconsistent experimental setups, hindering fair comparison. To address this gap, we propose a realistic federated RS dataset, termed FedRS. FedRS consists of eight datasets that cover various sensors and resolutions and builds 135 clients, which is representative of realistic operational scenarios. Data for each client come from the same source, exhibiting authentic federated properties such as skewed label distributions, imbalanced client data volumes, and domain heterogeneity across clients. These characteristics reflect practical challenges in federated RS and support evaluation of FL methods at scale. Based on FedRS, we implement 10 baseline FL algorithms and evaluation metrics to construct the comprehensive FedRS-Bench. The experimental results demonstrate that FL can consistently improve model performance over training on isolated data silos, while revealing performance trade-offs of different methods under varying client heterogeneity and availability conditions. We hope FedRS-Bench will accelerate research on large-scale, realistic FL in RS by providing a standardized, rich testbed and facilitating fair comparisons across future works. The source codes and dataset are available at https://fedrs-bench.github.io/.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.08325 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Samples of FedRS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visualization of features of from different sources using t-SNE. The corresponding cate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Data distribution between different clients under NIID-1 partition. (a) Category distribution, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Test accuracy curve of FL baseline method during the communication round of training. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Taking the Residential class as an example, there are obvious differences in the style of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization of features of from different sources using t-SNE. The corresponding cate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualization of features of different clients in FedRS. Several clients are randomly selected [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Local training accuracies of 135 clients on FedRS. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Local training accuracies of 135 clients on FedRS-5. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Test accuracy curve of FL baseline method during the communication round of training. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Test accuracy curve of FL baseline method during the communication round of training. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Test accuracy curve of FL baseline method during the communication round of training. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    An evidential combination method with multi-color spaces for remote sensing image scene classification

    Linqing Huang, Wangbo Zhao, Alan Wee-Chung Liew, and Yang You. An evidential combination method with multi-color spaces for remote sensing image scene classification. Information Fusion, 93:209–226, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Vrsbench: A versatile vision-language benchmark dataset for remote sensing image understanding

    Xiang Li, Jian Ding, and Mohamed Elhoseiny. Vrsbench: A versatile vision-language benchmark dataset for remote sensing image understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.12384, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Fedrsclip: Federated learning for remote sensing scene classification using vision-language models

    Hui Lin, Chao Zhang, Danfeng Hong, Kexin Dong, and Congcong Wen. Fedrsclip: Federated learning for remote sensing scene classification using vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.02461, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Satlaspretrain: A large-scale dataset for remote sensing image understanding

    Favyen Bastani, Piper Wolters, Ritwik Gupta, Joe Ferdinando, and Aniruddha Kembhavi. Satlaspretrain: A large-scale dataset for remote sensing image understanding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 16772–16782, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data

    Brendan McMahan, Eider Moore, Daniel Ramage, Seth Hampson, and Blaise Aguera y Arcas. Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data. In Artificial intelligence and statistics, pages 1273–1282. PMLR, 2017

    2017

  6. [6]

    Fedprompt: Communication-efficient and privacy-preserving prompt tuning in federated learning

    Haodong Zhao, Wei Du, Fangqi Li, Peixuan Li, and Gongshen Liu. Fedprompt: Communication-efficient and privacy-preserving prompt tuning in federated learning. In ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1–5. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  7. [7]

    Fedlpa: One-shot federated learning with layer-wise posterior aggregation

    Xiang Liu, Liangxi Liu, Feiyang Ye, Yunheng Shen, Xia Li, Linshan Jiang, and Jialin Li. Fedlpa: One-shot federated learning with layer-wise posterior aggregation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:81510–81548, 2024

    2024

  8. [8]

    Privacy-preserving vertical federated learning with tensor decomposition for data missing features

    Tianchi Liao, Lele Fu, Lei Zhang, Lei Yang, Chuan Chen, Michael K Ng, Huawei Huang, and Zibin Zheng. Privacy-preserving vertical federated learning with tensor decomposition for data missing features. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 2025

    work page 2025

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Learn the global prompt in the low-rank tensor space for heterogeneous federated learning

    Lele Fu, Sheng Huang, Yuecheng Li, Chuan Chen, Chuanfu Zhang, and Zibin Zheng. Learn the global prompt in the low-rank tensor space for heterogeneous federated learning. Neural Networks, 187:107319, 2025

    2025

  2. [10]

    Cross-silo feature space alignment for federated learning on clients with imbalanced data

    Zhuang Qi, Lei Meng, Zhaochuan Li, Han Hu, and Xiangxu Meng. Cross-silo feature space alignment for federated learning on clients with imbalanced data. 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Privacy-preserving federated learning of remote sensing image classification with dishonest majority

    Jiang Zhu, Jun Wu, Ali Kashif Bashir, Qianqian Pan, and Wu Yang. Privacy-preserving federated learning of remote sensing image classification with dishonest majority. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 16:4685–4698, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Federated deep learning with prototype matching for object extraction from very-high-resolution remote sensing images

    Xiaokang Zhang, Boning Zhang, Weikang Yu, and Xudong Kang. Federated deep learning with prototype matching for object extraction from very-high-resolution remote sensing images. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 61:1–16, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Learning across decentralized multi-modal remote sensing archives with federated learning

    Barı¸ s Büyükta¸ s, Gencer Sumbul, and Begüm Demir. Learning across decentralized multi-modal remote sensing archives with federated learning. In IGARSS 2023-2023 IEEE international geoscience and remote sensing symposium, pages 4966–4969. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Feddiff: Diffusion model driven federated learning for multi-modal and multi-clients

    Daixun Li, Weiying Xie, Zixuan Wang, Yibing Lu, Yunsong Li, and Leyuan Fang. Feddiff: Diffusion model driven federated learning for multi-modal and multi-clients. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Transformer- based federated learning for multi-label remote sensing image classification

    Barı¸ s Büyükta¸ s, Kenneth Weitzel, Sebastian Völkers, Felix Zailskas, and Begüm Demir. Transformer- based federated learning for multi-label remote sensing image classification. In IGARSS 2024-2024 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, pages 8726–8730. ...

    2024

  8. [16]

    Leveraging feature communication in federated learning for remote sensing image classification

    Anh-Kiet Duong, Hoàng-Ân Lê, and Minh-Tan Pham. Leveraging feature communication in federated learning for remote sensing image classification. In IGARSS 2024-2024 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, pages 6890–6894. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Federated learning approach for remote sensing scene classification

    Belgacem Ben Youssef, Lamyaa Alhmidi, Yakoub Bazi, and Mansour Zuair. Federated learning approach for remote sensing scene classification. Remote Sensing, 16(12):2194, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Federated learning across decentralized and unshared archives for remote sensing image classification: A review

    Baris Büyüktas, Gencer Sumbul, and Begüm Demir. Federated learning across decentralized and unshared archives for remote sensing image classification: A review. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine, 2024. 10

    2024

  11. [19]

    Federated learning meets remote sensing

    Sergio Moreno-Álvarez, Mercedes E Paoletti, Andres J Sanchez-Fernandez, Juan A Rico-Gallego, Lirong Han, and Juan M Haut. Federated learning meets remote sensing. Expert Systems with Applications, page 124583, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    A multi-modal federated learning framework for remote sensing image classification

    Barı¸ s Büyükta¸ s, Gencer Sumbul, and Begüm Demir. A multi-modal federated learning framework for remote sensing image classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.10262, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Safe: Self-adjustment federated learning framework for remote sensing collaborative perception

    Xiaohe Li, Haohua Wu, Jiahao Li, Zide Fan, Kaixin Zhang, Xinming Li, Yunping Ge, and Xinyu Zhao. Safe: Self-adjustment federated learning framework for remote sensing collaborative perception. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.03700, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Communication-efficient federated learning based on explanation-guided pruning for remote sensing image classification

    Jonas Klotz, Barı¸ s Büyükta¸ s, and Begüm Demir. Communication-efficient federated learning based on explanation-guided pruning for remote sensing image classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.11493, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Vertical federated learning in practice: The good, the bad, and the ugly

    Zhaomin Wu, Zhen Qin, Junyi Hou, Haodong Zhao, Qinbin Li, Bingsheng He, and Lixin Fan. Vertical federated learning in practice: The good, the bad, and the ugly. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.08160, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Scene classification with recurrent attention of vhr remote sensing images

    Qi Wang, Shaoteng Liu, Jocelyn Chanussot, and Xuelong Li. Scene classification with recurrent attention of vhr remote sensing images. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 57(2):1155–1167, 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    Bag-of-visual-words and spatial extensions for land-use classification

    Yi Yang and Shawn Newsam. Bag-of-visual-words and spatial extensions for land-use classification. In Proceedings of the 18th SIGSPATIAL international conference on advances in geographic information systems, pages 270–279, 2010

    2010

  18. [26]

    Self-supervised learning for remote sensing scene classification under the few shot scenario

    Najd Alosaimi, Haikel Alhichri, Yakoub Bazi, Belgacem Ben Youssef, and Naif Alajlan. Self-supervised learning for remote sensing scene classification under the few shot scenario. Scientific Reports, 13(1):433, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Federated learning for remote sensing image classification using sparse image representations

    Christina Kopidaki, Grigorios Tsagkatakis, and Panagiotis Tsakalides. Federated learning for remote sensing image classification using sparse image representations. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 2025

    2025

  20. [28]

    Measuring the effects of non-identical data distribu- tion for federated visual classification

    Tzu-Ming Harry Hsu, Hang Qi, and Matthew Brown. Measuring the effects of non-identical data distribu- tion for federated visual classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.06335, 2019

    1909 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Federated optimization in heterogeneous networks

    Tian Li, Anit Kumar Sahu, Manzil Zaheer, Maziar Sanjabi, Ameet Talwalkar, and Virginia Smith. Federated optimization in heterogeneous networks. In Proceedings of Machine Learning and Systems, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    Reddi, Sebastian U

    Sai Praneeth Karimireddy, Satyen Kale, Mehryar Mohri, Sashank J. Reddi, Sebastian U. Stich, and Ananda Theertha Suresh. SCAFFOLD: stochastic controlled averaging for federated learning. In Proceed- ings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 5132–5143. PMLR, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Vincent Poor

    Jianyu Wang, Qinghua Liu, Hao Liang, Gauri Joshi, and H. Vincent Poor. Tackling the objective inconsis- tency problem in heterogeneous federated optimization. In NeurIPS, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    Federated learning based on dynamic regularization

    Durmus Alp Emre Acar, Yue Zhao, Ramon Matas Navarro, Matthew Mattina, Paul N Whatmough, and Venkatesh Saligrama. Federated learning based on dynamic regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.04263, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Feddc: Federated learning with non-iid data via local drift decoupling and correction

    Liang Gao, Huazhu Fu, Li Li, Yingwen Chen, Ming Xu, and Cheng-Zhong Xu. Feddc: Federated learning with non-iid data via local drift decoupling and correction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10112–10121, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    Model-contrastive federated learning

    Qinbin Li, Bingsheng He, and Dawn Song. Model-contrastive federated learning. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10713–10722, 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    Feddisco: Federated learning with discrepancy-aware collaboration

    Rui Ye, Mingkai Xu, Jianyu Wang, Chenxin Xu, Siheng Chen, and Yanfeng Wang. Feddisco: Federated learning with discrepancy-aware collaboration. In ICML, pages 39879–39902, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Performance analysis and optimization in privacy-preserving federated learning

    Kang Wei, Jun Li, Ming Ding, Chuan Ma, Hang Su, Bo Zhang, and H Vincent Poor. Performance analysis and optimization in privacy-preserving federated learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.00229, 2020

    2003 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Leaf: A benchmark for federated settings

    Sebastian Caldas, Sai Meher Karthik Duddu, Peter Wu, Tian Li, Jakub Kone ˇcn`y, H Brendan McMa- han, Virginia Smith, and Ameet Talwalkar. Leaf: A benchmark for federated settings. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.01097, 2018. 11

    2018 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Flair: Federated learning annotated image repository

    Congzheng Song, Filip Granqvist, and Kunal Talwar. Flair: Federated learning annotated image repository. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:37792–37805, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    Flamby: Datasets and benchmarks for cross-silo federated learning in realistic healthcare settings.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:5315–5334, 2022

    Jean Ogier du Terrail, Samy-Safwan Ayed, Edwige Cyffers, Felix Grimberg, Chaoyang He, Regis Loeb, Paul Mangold, Tanguy Marchand, Othmane Marfoq, Erum Mushtaq, et al. Flamby: Datasets and benchmarks for cross-silo federated learning in realistic healthcare settings.Advances in ...

    2022

  32. [40]

    Fedllm- bench: Realistic benchmarks for federated learning of large language models

    Rui Ye, Rui Ge, Xinyu Zhu, Jingyi Chai, Du Yaxin, Yang Liu, Yanfeng Wang, and Siheng Chen. Fedllm- bench: Realistic benchmarks for federated learning of large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:111106–111130, 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    Fedmeki: A benchmark for scaling medical foundation models via federated knowledge injection

    Jiaqi Wang, Xiaochen Wang, Lingjuan Lyu, Jinghui Chen, and Fenglong Ma. Fedmeki: A benchmark for scaling medical foundation models via federated knowledge injection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.09227, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:43403–43434, 2024

    Filip Granqvist, Congzheng Song, Áine Cahill, Rogier van Dalen, Martin Pelikan, Yi Sheng Chan, Xiaojun Feng, Natarajan Krishnaswami, V ojta Jina, and Mona Chitnis.pf l − research: simulation framework for accelerating research in private federated learning. Advances in Neural ...

    2024

  35. [43]

    Nasc-tg2: Natural scene classification with tiangong-2 remotely sensed imagery

    Zhuang Zhou, Shengyang Li, Wei Wu, Weilong Guo, Xuan Li, Guisong Xia, and Zifei Zhao. Nasc-tg2: Natural scene classification with tiangong-2 remotely sensed imagery. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 14:3228–3242, 2021

    2021

  36. [44]

    Satellite image classification via two-layer sparse coding with biased image representation

    Dengxin Dai and Wen Yang. Satellite image classification via two-layer sparse coding with biased image representation. IEEE Geoscience and remote sensing letters, 8(1):173–176, 2010

    2010

  37. [45]

    Eurosat: A novel dataset and deep learning benchmark for land use and land cover classification

    Patrick Helber, Benjamin Bischke, Andreas Dengel, and Damian Borth. Eurosat: A novel dataset and deep learning benchmark for land use and land cover classification. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 12(7):2217–2226, 2019

    2019

  38. [46]

    Aid: A benchmark data set for performance evaluation of aerial scene classification

    Gui-Song Xia, Jingwen Hu, Fan Hu, Baoguang Shi, Xiang Bai, Yanfei Zhong, Liangpei Zhang, and Xiaoqiang Lu. Aid: A benchmark data set for performance evaluation of aerial scene classification. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 55(7):3965–3981, 2017

    2017

  39. [47]

    Remote sensing image scene classification: Benchmark and state of the art

    Gong Cheng, Junwei Han, and Xiaoqiang Lu. Remote sensing image scene classification: Benchmark and state of the art. Proceedings of the IEEE, 105(10):1865–1883, 2017

    2017

  40. [48]

    Accurate object localization in remote sensing images based on convolutional neural networks

    Yang Long, Yiping Gong, Zhifeng Xiao, and Qing Liu. Accurate object localization in remote sensing images based on convolutional neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 55(5):2486–2498, 2017

    2017

  41. [49]

    Cluster quality analysis using silhouette score

    Ketan Rajshekhar Shahapure and Charles Nicholas. Cluster quality analysis using silhouette score. In 2020 IEEE 7th international conference on data science and advanced analytics (DSAA), pages 747–748. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  42. [50]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770–778, 2016

    2016

  43. [51]

    Residential

    Jieming Bian, Yuanzhe Peng, Lei Wang, Yin Huang, and Jie Xu. A survey on parameter-efficient fine-tuning for foundation models in federated learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.21099, 2025. A Limitations With the continuous introduction of new remote sensing data sets and the c...

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.