Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 155 references

Domain Adaptation for Big Data in Agricultural Image Analysis: A Comprehensive Review

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Domain adaptation substantially improves cross-domain performance in agricultural image analysis, and this review organizes the evidence across disease detection, yield prediction, and farmland extraction.

desk verdict A useful survey of domain adaptation in agricultural vision, but Table III's internal arithmetic contradictions undermine the experimental claims as they stand. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05972 v5 pith:ML4RBQPQ submitted 2025-06-06 cs.CV

Xing Hu , Siyuan Chen , Qianqian Duan , Choon Ki Ahn , Huiliang Shang , Dawei Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords domainadaptationagriculturalimageanalysisdeeplearningunsupervisedadversarialplantdiseasedetectioncropyieldpredictionremotesensing
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 domain adaptation is an effective remedy for domain shift in agricultural vision, where environmental changes, sensor differences, and label scarcity otherwise degrade models trained on one dataset when applied to another. It systematically organizes domain adaptation methods into shallow and deep categories, then supports the central claim with experiments in three tasks: plant disease detection, crop yield prediction, and remote-sensing farmland extraction. In each task, an adapted model outperforms source-only baselines and standard non-adaptive methods. A sympathetic reader would take away that aligning source and target feature distributions is a transferable strategy across agricultural vision problems.

What carries the argument

The unifying mechanism is distribution alignment: domain adaptation minimizes a measure of difference such as maximum mean discrepancy or an adversarial domain-classification loss between labeled source features and unlabeled target features. The paper's taxonomy maps methods onto this mechanism, with shallow methods that reweight instances, transform features, or adapt classifiers, and deep methods that perform end-to-end alignment. Three representative systems carry the experimental weight: MSUN, a multi-representation subdomain alignment network with uncertainty regularization; ADANN, a domain-adversarial network with a dynamically weighted loss for regression; and TransFusion-DualDA, a Transformer-based segmentation framework combining adversarial training, self-training, and multi-scale feature fusion.

What would settle it

Run the C-PD disease detection setup with an explicit class-overlap map between PlantVillage and PlantDoc; if restricting evaluation to the common classes reduces or eliminates MSUN's advantage over the source-only baseline, the central claim is not supported. Alternatively, a control that permutes target labels should collapse domain-adaptation gains to zero if alignment is the cause.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that domain adaptation methods significantly improve cross-domain performance in agricultural image analysis. The evidence is a set of benchmark comparisons: MSUN raises average classification accuracy by 25 percentage points over a source-only baseline in a multi-crop disease transfer task; ADANN lifts cross-ecoregion corn yield prediction from R2=0.19 to 0.73 in the hardest 2019 setting; and TransFusion-DualDA raises farmland extraction IoU by roughly 5 to 10 points over strong adaptation baselines across resolution gaps. The claim extends beyond the numbers: adversarial and discrepancy-alignment techniques are said to learn domain-invariant representations that preserve task-relevant semantics, making them suited to the unlabeled, heterogeneous, and large-scale data typical of agriculture.

Load-bearing premise

The comparisons rest on the assumption that the source and target datasets share the same label spaces so a single classifier can be evaluated on the same classes; the paper does not map classes or handle open-set categories, so if the label sets diverge the reported gains could come from measuring different class subsets rather than from adaptation itself.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Unsupervised domain adaptation is viable when target labels are absent, which matches agricultural settings where annotation requires agronomist expertise.
  • Adversarial learning is especially effective in complex scenarios with seasonal, sensor, and resolution shifts.
  • Transformer backbones with multi-scale fusion handle large resolution gaps better than CNN baselines in land-extraction tasks.
  • Domain adaptation reduces spatial and temporal error concentration, as shown by error maps in yield prediction.
  • Future gains depend on lightweight models, source-free adaptation, multi-modal fusion, and standardized benchmarks, as the paper itself projects.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The benchmark evidence assumes label spaces align across source and target datasets; if class overlap is partial, reported gains may mix adaptation with class-capacity effects, and computing per-class overlap would settle this.
  • Each experiment showcases a single adapted method rather than a meta-analysis, so the paper supports the existence of domain-adaptation gains more strongly than a ranking of methods.
  • A testable extension would apply the same adaptation protocols to dataset pairs with controlled label overlap, quantifying how much of the gain comes from alignment versus shared classes.
  • The paper's emphasis on unsupervised and source-free adaptation suggests a direct path to deployment in low-resource rural settings, though the evidence base for source-free methods remains thin.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a review of domain adaptation (DA) for agricultural image analysis. It organizes DA methods into shallow and deep categories and further subdivides them by supervision strategy, and it claims that DA methods have substantially improved cross-domain performance in crop health monitoring, disease and pest detection, fruit identification, yield prediction, and farmland extraction. The review also catalogs agricultural datasets and proposes future research directions. To support the headline claim, the paper includes an experimental section with three benchmark groups: plant disease classification (Table III), crop yield prediction (Table IV), and remote-sensing farmland extraction (Table V).

Significance. The survey's organization and breadth are useful: it brings together a wide range of recent methods and datasets and gives a clear taxonomy of shallow versus deep DA, with a sensible distinction among supervised, semi-supervised, and unsupervised strategies. The discussion of challenges and future directions is also informative, especially the emphasis on label scarcity, multi-modal fusion, and benchmark standardization. However, the paper's central quantitative claim—that DA methods have significantly improved cross-domain performance—rests on Section V, and that evidence is currently unreliable. The arithmetic inconsistencies in Table III and the unstated label-space and implementation protocols prevent the reader from assessing the headline result. The survey can still be a valuable reference if the experimental section is either corrected and fully specified or reframed as a descriptive summary of published results rather than as new evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [§V.C, Table III and Eq. (8)] The Average rows in Table III are arithmetically incompatible with the per-class rows and with the AA definition in Eq. (8). For C-PD Baseline, the six class accuracies (67.38, 50.07, 71.36, 84.19, 50.34, 30.17) average to 58.92%, yet the table reports 30.78%; for MSUN, the class-wise mean is 70.49%, yet the table reports 56.06%. Similar mismatches appear in the PVD-PP and PVD-CLD Average rows. Either Eq. (8) was not used, or the class rows and Average rows were taken from different runs or splits. Because the statements that MSUN is about 25 percentage points above baseline and that DA methods have 'significantly improved' performance rest on this table, the table must be recomputed and the averaging rule stated explicitly.
  2. [§V.C, Figure 16 and dataset descriptions] The four transfer tasks are described only by source and target dataset names, with PlantVillage uniformly set as the source. The paper does not state which classes are shared between PlantVillage and PlantDoc, Plant-Pathology, Corn-Leaf-Diseases, or Tomato-Leaf-Diseases, how class labels are mapped across domains, how classes absent in one domain are handled, or whether an open-set protocol was used. Without this specification, the per-class accuracies in Table III cannot be interpreted as a well-defined unsupervised domain adaptation evaluation, and the label-space alignment assumption is unverified.
  3. [§V, Tables III–V] No implementation details are given for the eight models in Table III or the six models in Table V: no backbone, resolution, optimizer, epochs, hyperparameters, train/validation splits, or number of runs are reported. No error bars or statistical significance tests are provided, so differences of a few percentage points (for example, PVD-CLD Gray spot 80.09 for MSUN versus 81.71 for DSAN) cannot be distinguished from noise. The manuscript should either report a full reproducibility protocol for any new experiments or clearly state that the numbers are reproduced from cited papers.
  4. [§V.D and §V.E] The yield-prediction experiment and the farmland-extraction experiment appear to rely heavily on the studies of Ma et al. [141] and Zhang et al. [86], and Figures 17, 18, and 20 are credited to those papers. The text nevertheless presents Tables IV and V as this paper's evaluations. The authors must clarify which numbers were produced by their own implementation, which were copied from the original papers, and whether all methods were re-run under exactly the same conditions; mixing reproduction and original benchmarking without this disclosure is misleading.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are repeated typographical issues, including 'thru' for 'through' and 'diferant' in the Figure 1 caption; the manuscript needs a careful proofreading pass.
  2. [Eq. (10)] The denominator in the R2 definition is malformed ('P i = 1n(yi − ¯y)2'); it should be typeset as a proper summation over i from 1 to n.
  3. [§V.B] COM is defined in Eq. (12), but COR is described only in prose and no formula is provided, even though F1seg in Eq. (13) depends on COR.
  4. [§VI.B(4)] The text '≤0 Mbps' appears to be a typo for '≤5 Mbps' or a similar non-zero bandwidth, and '¿85%' should read '>85%'.
  5. [Reference [13]] Reference [13] is malformed: 'S. PanQ, “Yang,...' does not correctly cite the transfer learning survey; the author name and title should be fixed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the review's claims rest on external published benchmarks, not on self-citations or fitted inputs.

full rationale

This paper is a descriptive literature review with a taxonomy of domain adaptation methods; it contains no derivation chain in which a prediction reduces to its own inputs. The central claim that DA methods improve cross-domain performance in agricultural image analysis is supported by citing externally published methods — MSUN (ref. [131]), ADANN (ref. [141]), and TransFusion-DualDA (ref. [86]) — whose results are reported in Section V. These are not parameters fitted by the present authors and then renamed as predictions. The paper does not cite its own authors, so there is no load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem. The inconsistencies in Table III's Average rows (e.g., the C-PD Baseline class values imply a macro-average of 58.92% under Eq. 8, while the table reports 30.78%) are arithmetic and reproducibility concerns, not circularity, because the reported numbers are not used to define or fit the models. The limitations listed in Section VI concern practical deployment challenges rather than circular dependencies. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited with a quote and a specific reduction, and the appropriate score is 0.

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

The review's central contribution is a taxonomy, so the main dependencies are domain assumptions about label-space alignment and source-domain representativeness, plus an unverified assumption that the cited methods were implemented exactly as described. The experimental claims also depend on unreported hyperparameters and a benchmark protocol with public datasets but no public code.

free parameters (3)
  • Loss weighting coefficient lambda in supervised and semi-supervised DA
    Eq. (5) and Eq. (7) introduce lambda to balance classification and alignment losses; no values are reported for the experiments.
  • ADANN dynamic weighting hyperparameters
    Section V.D describes a dynamic weighted loss for ADANN but does not state the weights, schedule, or initialization.
  • Benchmark training hyperparameters for compared models
    Learning rates, epochs, batch sizes, optimizers, and data augmentation settings for all compared models are absent.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Source and target domains share a common label space in the evaluated transfer tasks.
    Section V.C and V.E transfer across datasets with different crops and disease classes without defining label alignment, yet the evaluation compares per-class accuracies as if classes were shared.
  • domain assumption PlantVillage can serve as a representative source domain for field disease datasets.
    Section V.C fixes PlantVillage as the source domain to ensure training stability, but gives no evidence that laboratory images are a valid source for field images.
  • ad hoc to paper The compared DA methods were implemented faithfully and under fair conditions.
    No code, hyperparameters, or implementation details are supplied, so the claimed superiority of MSUN, ADANN, and TransFusion-DualDA depends on an unstated implementation assumption.
  • standard math MMD as defined in Eq. (3) is a valid distribution discrepancy measure in an RKHS.
    Used as background for multiple reviewed methods; standard but not proven in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Domain Adaptation for Big Data in Agricultural Image Analysis: A Comprehensive Review." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ML4RBQPQ

@misc{pith2026250605972,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Domain Adaptation for Big Data in Agricultural Image Analysis: A Comprehensive Review},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ML4RBQPQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05972}
}
read the original abstract

With the wide application of computer vision in agriculture, image analysis has become the key to tasks such as crop health monitoring and pest detection. However, the significant domain shifts caused by environmental changes, different crop types, and diverse data acquisition methods seriously hinder the generalization ability of the model in cross-region, cross-season, and complex agricultural scenarios. This paper explores how domain adaptation (DA) techniques can address these challenges to improve cross-domain transferability in agricultural image analysis. DA is considered a promising solution in the case of limited labeled data, insufficient model adaptability, and dynamic changes in the field environment. This paper systematically reviews the latest advances in DA in agricultural images in recent years, focusing on application scenarios such as crop health monitoring, pest and disease detection, and fruit identification, in which DA methods have significantly improved cross-domain performance. We categorize DA methods into shallow learning and deep learning methods, including supervised, semi-supervised and unsupervised strategies, and pay special attention to the adversarial learning-based techniques that perform well in complex scenarios. In addition, this paper also reviews the main public datasets of agricultural images, and evaluates their advantages and limitations in DA research. Overall, this study provides a complete framework and some key insights that can be used as a reference for the research and development of domain adaptation methods in future agricultural vision tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05972 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Application of diferant models in agriculture [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of source and target data: (left) misalignment of feature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Aerial scenes from Ghaziabad, India, captured during rainy and dry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Domain shift can be alleviated through instance weighting. (a) Source [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Diagram of Subspace Alignment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Schematic diagram of domain adaptation based on transformation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Flowchart of domain adaptation based on active learning (AL). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The structure diagram of Takahashi et al.’s method [35]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Schematic diagram of the model structure of Ghanbari method [66]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Schematic diagram of GAN adversarial training principle. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The multi-scale cross-domain adversarial training and feature fusion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The basic structure of DANN’s cross-domain feature alignment. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Example images of the in-field cotton boll (IFCB) dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Domain adaptation configurations for the four groups of experiments. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_16.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The distribution of mean absolute error of GP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_18.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Two ecoregions used in the cross-domain yield prediction experiment: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_17.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Segmentation results of DeepGlobe→GID. (a) Target image; (b) Ground truth; (c) Source-only; (d) ADVENT; (e) IntraDA; (f) TransFusion￾DualDA. and multi-scale fusion help to capture contextual and structural information. In the reverse transfer DeepGlobe→GID (high to lo…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Examples of three agricultural land segmentation datasets: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_19.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

155 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [141]

    An adaptive adversarial domain adaptation approach for corn yield prediction,

    Y . Ma, Z. Zhang, H. L. Yang, and Z. Yang, “An adaptive adversarial domain adaptation approach for corn yield prediction,” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, vol. 187, p. 106314, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [86]

    Unsupervised adversarial domain adaptation for agricultural land extraction of remote sensing images,

    J. Zhang, S. Xu, J. Sun, D. Ou, X. Wu, and M. Wang, “Unsupervised adversarial domain adaptation for agricultural land extraction of remote sensing images,” Remote Sensing, vol. 14, no. 24, p. 6298, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [1]

    Latent do- main generation for unsupervised domain adaptation object counting,

    A. Zhang, Y . Yang, J. Xu, X. Cao, X. Zhen, and L. Shao, “Latent do- main generation for unsupervised domain adaptation object counting,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia , vol. 25, pp. 1773–1783, 2022

    2022

  4. [2]

    Qui ˜nonero-Candela, Dataset shift in machine learning

    J. Qui ˜nonero-Candela, Dataset shift in machine learning . Mit Press, 2009

    2009

  5. [3]

    A review of deep learning techniques for identification and diagnosis of plant leaf disease,

    R. N. Jogekar and N. Tiwari, “A review of deep learning techniques for identification and diagnosis of plant leaf disease,” Smart Trends in Computing and Communications: Proceedings of SmartCom 2020 , pp. 435–441, 2020. 20

    2020

  6. [4]

    Cumulative unsupervised multi-domain adaptation for holstein cattle re-identification,

    F. Dubourvieux, G. Lapouge, A. Loesch, B. Luvison, and R. Audigier, “Cumulative unsupervised multi-domain adaptation for holstein cattle re-identification,” Artificial Intelligence in Agriculture, vol. 10, pp. 46– 60, 2023

    2023

  7. [5]

    Convolutional neural networks for image-based high-throughput plant phenotyping: a review,

    Y . Jiang and C. Li, “Convolutional neural networks for image-based high-throughput plant phenotyping: a review,” Plant Phenomics, 2020

    2020

  8. [6]

    A comprehensive survey on domain adaptation for visual applications,

    G. Csurka, “A comprehensive survey on domain adaptation for visual applications,” Domain adaptation in computer vision applications , pp. 1–35, 2017

    2017

Show all 155 references
  1. [7]

    Deep visual domain adaptation: A survey,

    M. Wang and W. Deng, “Deep visual domain adaptation: A survey,” Neurocomputing, vol. 312, pp. 135–153, 2018

    2018

  2. [8]

    A survey of unsupervised deep domain adaptation,

    G. Wilson and D. J. Cook, “A survey of unsupervised deep domain adaptation,” ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST), vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 1–46, 2020

    2020

  3. [9]

    A review of domain adaptation without target labels,

    W. M. Kouw and M. Loog, “A review of domain adaptation without target labels,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 766–785, 2019

    2019

  4. [10]

    Visual domain adaptation: A survey of recent advances,

    V . M. Patel, R. Gopalan, R. Li, and R. Chellappa, “Visual domain adaptation: A survey of recent advances,” IEEE signal processing magazine, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 53–69, 2015

    2015

  5. [11]

    A survey of multi-source domain adaptation,

    S. Sun, H. Shi, and Y . Wu, “A survey of multi-source domain adaptation,” Information Fusion, vol. 24, pp. 84–92, 2015

    2015

  6. [12]

    Multi-source domain adap- tation in the deep learning era: A systematic survey,

    S. Zhao, B. Li, P. Xu, and K. Keutzer, “Multi-source domain adap- tation in the deep learning era: A systematic survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.12169, 2020

    2002 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Yang,“a survey on transfer learning,

    S. PanQ, “Yang,“a survey on transfer learning,”,” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng, vol. 22, no. 10, pp. 1345–1359, 2010

    2010

  8. [14]

    Transfer learning for visual categorization: A survey,

    L. Shao, F. Zhu, and X. Li, “Transfer learning for visual categorization: A survey,”IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 1019–1034, 2014

    2014

  9. [15]

    Recent advances in transfer learning for cross-dataset visual recognition: A problem-oriented per- spective,

    J. Zhang, W. Li, P. Ogunbona, and D. Xu, “Recent advances in transfer learning for cross-dataset visual recognition: A problem-oriented per- spective,” ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) , vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 1–38, 2019

    2019

  10. [16]

    A survey on deep transfer learning,

    C. Tan, F. Sun, T. Kong, W. Zhang, C. Yang, and C. Liu, “A survey on deep transfer learning,” in Artificial Neural Networks and Machine Learning–ICANN 2018: 27th International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks, Rhodes, Greece, October 4-7, 2018, Proceedings, Part III 27...

    2018

  11. [17]

    A comprehensive survey on transfer learning,

    F. Zhuang, Z. Qi, K. Duan, D. Xi, Y . Zhu, H. Zhu, H. Xiong, and Q. He, “A comprehensive survey on transfer learning,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 109, no. 1, pp. 43–76, 2020

    2020

  12. [18]

    Rich feature hierarchies for accurate object detection and semantic segmentation,

    R. Girshick, J. Donahue, T. Darrell, and J. Malik, “Rich feature hierarchies for accurate object detection and semantic segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2014, pp. 580–587

    2014

  13. [19]

    Fast r-cnn,

    R. Girshick, “Fast r-cnn,” in Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , 2015, pp. 1440–1448

    2015

  14. [20]

    Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks,

    R. Faster, “Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 9199, no. 10.5555, pp. 2 969 239–2 969 250, 2015

    2015

  15. [21]

    A robust deep- learning-based detector for real-time tomato plant diseases and pests recognition,

    A. Fuentes, S. Yoon, S. C. Kim, and D. S. Park, “A robust deep- learning-based detector for real-time tomato plant diseases and pests recognition,” Sensors, vol. 17, no. 9, p. 2022, 2017

    2022

  16. [22]

    Transfer joint matching for unsupervised domain adaptation,

    M. Long, J. Wang, G. Ding, J. Sun, and P. S. Yu, “Transfer joint matching for unsupervised domain adaptation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2014, pp. 1410–1417

    2014

  17. [23]

    Diafan-tl: An instance weighting-based transfer learning algorithm with application to phe- nology forecasting,

    M. A. Molina-Cabanillas, M. J. Jim ´enez-Navarro, R. Arjona, F. Mart´ınez- ´Alvarez, and G. Asencio-Cort ´es, “Diafan-tl: An instance weighting-based transfer learning algorithm with application to phe- nology forecasting,” Knowledge-Based Systems , vol. 254, p. 109644, 2022

    2022

  18. [24]

    Ran- domized histogram matching: A simple augmentation for unsupervised domain adaptation in overhead imagery,

    C. Yaras, K. Kassaw, B. Huang, K. Bradbury, and J. M. Malof, “Ran- domized histogram matching: A simple augmentation for unsupervised domain adaptation in overhead imagery,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing , vol. 17, pp. 1988–1998, 2023

    1988

  19. [25]

    Iterative weighted active transfer learning hyperspectral image classification,

    Y . Cui, L. Wang, J. Su, S. Gao, and L. Wang, “Iterative weighted active transfer learning hyperspectral image classification,” Journal of Applied Remote Sensing , vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 032 207–032 207, 2021

    2021

  20. [26]

    Cost-sensitive self-paced learning with adaptive regularization for classification of image time series,

    H. Li, J. Li, Y . Zhao, M. Gong, Y . Zhang, and T. Liu, “Cost-sensitive self-paced learning with adaptive regularization for classification of image time series,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing , vol. 14, pp. 11 713–11 727, 2021

    2021

  21. [27]

    Domain adaptation for the classification of remote sensing data: An overview of recent advances,

    D. Tuia, C. Persello, and L. Bruzzone, “Domain adaptation for the classification of remote sensing data: An overview of recent advances,” IEEE geoscience and remote sensing magazine , vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 41– 57, 2016

    2016

  22. [28]

    Identifying autism spectrum disorder with multi-site fmri via low-rank domain adaptation,

    M. Wang, D. Zhang, J. Huang, P.-T. Yap, D. Shen, and M. Liu, “Identifying autism spectrum disorder with multi-site fmri via low-rank domain adaptation,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging , vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 644–655, 2020

    2020

  23. [29]

    Unsupervised visual domain adaptation using subspace alignment,

    B. Fernando, A. Habrard, M. Sebban, and T. Tuytelaars, “Unsupervised visual domain adaptation using subspace alignment,” in Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, 2013, pp. 2960– 2967

    2013

  24. [30]

    Return of frustratingly easy domain adaptation,

    B. Sun, J. Feng, and K. Saenko, “Return of frustratingly easy domain adaptation,” in Proceedings of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Arti- ficial Intelligence, ser. AAAI’16. AAAI Press, 2016, p. 2058–2065

    2016

  25. [31]

    A modified correlation alignment algorithm for the domain adaptation of gf-5 hyperspectral image,

    J. Peng, W. Sun, T. Wei, and W. Fan, “A modified correlation alignment algorithm for the domain adaptation of gf-5 hyperspectral image,” Journal of Remote Sensing (Chinese) , vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 417–426, 2020

    2020

  26. [32]

    Early crop classification via multi-modal satellite data fusion and temporal attention,

    F. Weilandt, R. Behling, R. Goncalves, A. Madadi, L. Richter, T. Sanona, D. Spengler, and J. Welsch, “Early crop classification via multi-modal satellite data fusion and temporal attention,” Remote Sensing, vol. 15, no. 3, p. 799, 2023

    2023

  27. [33]

    An adversarial generative network for crop classification from remote sensing timeseries images,

    J. Li, Y . Shen, and C. Yang, “An adversarial generative network for crop classification from remote sensing timeseries images,” Remote Sensing, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 65, 2020

    2020

  28. [34]

    Cross domain early crop mapping with label spaces discrepancies using multicropgan,

    Y . Wang, H. Huang, and R. State, “Cross domain early crop mapping with label spaces discrepancies using multicropgan,” ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, vol. 10, pp. 241–248, 2024

    2024

  29. [35]

    Domain adaptation for agricultural image recognition and segmentation using category maps,

    K. Takahashi, H. Madokoro, S. Yamamoto, Y . Nishimura, S. Nix, H. Woo, T. K. Saito, and K. Sato, “Domain adaptation for agricultural image recognition and segmentation using category maps,” in 2021 21st International Conference on Control, Automation and Systems (ICCAS). IEEE,...

    2021

  30. [36]

    A novel approach to the selection of spatially invariant features for the classification of hyperspectral images with improved generalization capability,

    L. Bruzzone and C. Persello, “A novel approach to the selection of spatially invariant features for the classification of hyperspectral images with improved generalization capability,” IEEE transactions on geoscience and remote sensing , vol. 47, no. 9, pp. 3180–3191, 2009

    2009

  31. [37]

    Kernel-based domain-invariant feature selection in hyperspectral images for transfer learning,

    C. Persello and L. Bruzzone, “Kernel-based domain-invariant feature selection in hyperspectral images for transfer learning,” IEEE transac- tions on geoscience and remote sensing , vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 2615–2626, 2015

    2015

  32. [38]

    A sensor-driven hierarchical method for domain adaptation in classification of remote sensing images,

    C. Paris and L. Bruzzone, “A sensor-driven hierarchical method for domain adaptation in classification of remote sensing images,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 1308–1324, 2017

    2017

  33. [39]

    Tradaboost based on improved particle swarm optimization for cross-domain scene classification with limited samples,

    L. Yan, R. Zhu, Y . Liu, and N. Mo, “Tradaboost based on improved particle swarm optimization for cross-domain scene classification with limited samples,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, vol. 11, no. 9, pp. 3235–3251, 2018

    2018

  34. [40]

    Set-based similarity learning in subspace for agricultural remote sensing classification,

    Y . Tang and X. Li, “Set-based similarity learning in subspace for agricultural remote sensing classification,” Neurocomputing, vol. 173, pp. 332–338, 2016

    2016

  35. [41]

    Hierarchical subspace learning based unsupervised domain adaptation for cross-domain classification of remote sensing images,

    B. Banerjee and S. Chaudhuri, “Hierarchical subspace learning based unsupervised domain adaptation for cross-domain classification of remote sensing images,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing , vol. 10, no. 11, pp. 5099– 5109, 2017

    2017

  36. [42]

    Morphological features for leaf based plant recognition,

    E. Aptoula and B. Yanikoglu, “Morphological features for leaf based plant recognition,” in 2013 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing. IEEE, 2013, pp. 1496–1499

    2013

  37. [43]

    Domain adaptation via transfer component analysis,

    S. J. Pan, I. W. Tsang, J. T. Kwok, and Q. Yang, “Domain adaptation via transfer component analysis,” IEEE transactions on neural networks , vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 199–210, 2010

    2010

  38. [44]

    Unsupervised retraining of a maximum likelihood classifier for the analysis of multitemporal remote sensing images,

    L. Bruzzone and D. F. Prieto, “Unsupervised retraining of a maximum likelihood classifier for the analysis of multitemporal remote sensing images,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 456–460, 2002

    2002

  39. [45]

    A partially unsupervised cascade classifier for the analysis of multitemporal remote-sensing images,

    ——, “A partially unsupervised cascade classifier for the analysis of multitemporal remote-sensing images,” Pattern Recognition Letters , vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 1063–1071, 2002

    2002

  40. [46]

    A multiple-cascade-classifier system for a robust and partially unsupervised updating of land-cover maps,

    L. Bruzzone and R. Cossu, “A multiple-cascade-classifier system for a robust and partially unsupervised updating of land-cover maps,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 40, no. 9, pp. 1984–1996, 2002. 21

    1984

  41. [47]

    Combining parametric and non-parametric algorithms for a partially unsupervised classification of multitemporal remote-sensing images,

    L. Bruzzone, R. Cossu, and G. Vernazza, “Combining parametric and non-parametric algorithms for a partially unsupervised classification of multitemporal remote-sensing images,” Information Fusion, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 289–297, 2002

    2002

  42. [48]

    An iterative training sample updating ap- proach for domain adaptation in hyperspectral image classification,

    S. Zhong and Y . Zhang, “An iterative training sample updating ap- proach for domain adaptation in hyperspectral image classification,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters , vol. 18, no. 10, pp. 1821–1825, 2020

    2020

  43. [49]

    Combining multiple classifiers for domain adaptation of remote sensing image classification,

    H. Wei, L. Ma, Y . Liu, and Q. Du, “Combining multiple classifiers for domain adaptation of remote sensing image classification,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, vol. 14, pp. 1832–1847, 2021

    2021

  44. [50]

    An open set domain adaptation algorithm via exploring transferability and discriminability for remote sensing image scene classification,

    J. Zhang, J. Liu, B. Pan, Z. Chen, X. Xu, and Z. Shi, “An open set domain adaptation algorithm via exploring transferability and discriminability for remote sensing image scene classification,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 60, pp. 1–12, 2021

    2021

  45. [51]

    Adapting remote sensing to new domain with elm parameter transfer,

    S. Xu, X. Mu, D. Chai, and S. Wang, “Adapting remote sensing to new domain with elm parameter transfer,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 1618–1622, 2017

    2017

  46. [52]

    Exploiting class hierarchies for knowledge transfer in hyperspectral data,

    S. Rajan, J. Ghosh, and M. M. Crawford, “Exploiting class hierarchies for knowledge transfer in hyperspectral data,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 44, no. 11, pp. 3408–3417, 2006

    2006

  47. [53]

    Domain adaptation problems: A dasvm classification technique and a circular validation strategy,

    L. Bruzzone and M. Marconcini, “Domain adaptation problems: A dasvm classification technique and a circular validation strategy,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 770–787, 2009

    2009

  48. [54]

    Active multi-kernel domain adaptation for hyperspectral image classification,

    C. Deng, X. Liu, C. Li, and D. Tao, “Active multi-kernel domain adaptation for hyperspectral image classification,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 77, pp. 306–315, 2018

    2018

  49. [55]

    Deep learning-based cross- sensor domain adaptation under active learning for land cover classi- fication,

    I. Kalita, R. N. S. Kumar, and M. Roy, “Deep learning-based cross- sensor domain adaptation under active learning for land cover classi- fication,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters , vol. 19, pp. 1–5, 2021

    2021

  50. [56]

    Active multiple kernel fredholm learning for hyperspectral images classification,

    A. Saboori, H. Ghassemian, and F. Razzazi, “Active multiple kernel fredholm learning for hyperspectral images classification,” IEEE Geo- science and Remote Sensing Letters , vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 356–360, 2020

    2020

  51. [57]

    Encoding invariances in remote sensing image classification with svm,

    E. Izquierdo-Verdiguier, V . Laparra, L. Gomez-Chova, and G. Camps- Valls, “Encoding invariances in remote sensing image classification with svm,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters , vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 981–985, 2012

    2012

  52. [58]

    Easy transfer learning by exploiting intra-domain structures,

    J. Wang, Y . Chen, H. Yu, M. Huang, and Q. Yang, “Easy transfer learning by exploiting intra-domain structures,” in 2019 IEEE interna- tional conference on multimedia and expo (ICME) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 1210–1215

    2019

  53. [60]

    Combining generative adversarial networks and agricultural transfer learning for weeds identification,

    B. Espejo-Garcia, N. Mylonas, L. Athanasakos, E. Vali, and S. Fountas, “Combining generative adversarial networks and agricultural transfer learning for weeds identification,” vol. 204. Elsevier, 2021, pp. 79–89

    2021

  54. [61]

    Extraction of agricultural fields via dasfnet with dual attention mechanism and multi-scale feature fusion in south xinjiang, china,

    R. Lu, N. Wang, Y . Zhang, Y . Lin, W. Wu, and Z. Shi, “Extraction of agricultural fields via dasfnet with dual attention mechanism and multi-scale feature fusion in south xinjiang, china,” Remote Sensing , vol. 14, no. 9, p. 2253, 2022

    2022

  55. [62]

    Full convo- lution neural network combined with contextual feature representation for cropland extraction from high-resolution remote sensing images,

    Z. Li, S. Chen, X. Meng, R. Zhu, J. Lu, L. Cao, and P. Lu, “Full convo- lution neural network combined with contextual feature representation for cropland extraction from high-resolution remote sensing images,” Remote Sensing, vol. 14, no. 9, p. 2157, 2022

    2022

  56. [63]

    Multi- scale adaptive feature fusion network for semantic segmentation in remote sensing images,

    R. Shang, J. Zhang, L. Jiao, Y . Li, N. Marturi, and R. Stolkin, “Multi- scale adaptive feature fusion network for semantic segmentation in remote sensing images,” Remote Sensing, vol. 12, no. 5, p. 872, 2020

    2020

  57. [64]

    High-resolution boundary refined convolutional neural network for automatic agricultural green- houses extraction from gaofen-2 satellite imageries,

    X. Zhang, B. Cheng, J. Chen, and C. Liang, “High-resolution boundary refined convolutional neural network for automatic agricultural green- houses extraction from gaofen-2 satellite imageries,” Remote Sensing, vol. 13, no. 21, p. 4237, 2021

    2021

  58. [65]

    The cityscapes dataset for semantic urban scene understanding,

    M. Cordts, M. Omran, S. Ramos, T. Rehfeld, M. Enzweiler, R. Be- nenson, U. Franke, S. Roth, and B. Schiele, “The cityscapes dataset for semantic urban scene understanding,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2016, pp. 3213–3223

    2016

  59. [66]

    Semi-self-supervised domain adaptation: Developing deep learning models with limited annotated data for wheat head segmentation,

    A. Ghanbari, G. H. Shirdel, and F. Maleki, “Semi-self-supervised domain adaptation: Developing deep learning models with limited annotated data for wheat head segmentation,”Algorithms, vol. 17, no. 6, p. 267, 2024

    2024

  60. [67]

    Unsuper- vised intra-domain adaptation for semantic segmentation through self- supervision,

    F. Pan, I. Shin, F. Rameau, S. Lee, and I. S. Kweon, “Unsuper- vised intra-domain adaptation for semantic segmentation through self- supervision,” in 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2020, pp. 3763–3772

    2020

  61. [68]

    Self- supervised learning: A succinct review,

    V . Rani, S. T. Nabi, M. Kumar, A. Mittal, and K. Kumar, “Self- supervised learning: A succinct review,” Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering , vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 2761–2775, 2023

    2023

  62. [69]

    Detection of fusarium damaged kernels in wheat using deep semi- supervised learning on a novel wheatseedbelt dataset,

    K. Najafian, L. Jin, H. R. Kutcher, M. Hladun, S. Horovatin, M. A. Oviedo-Ludena, S. M. P. De Andrade, L. Wang, and I. Stavness, “Detection of fusarium damaged kernels in wheat using deep semi- supervised learning on a novel wheatseedbelt dataset,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/C...

    2023

  63. [70]

    A semi-self-supervised learning approach for wheat head detection using extremely small number of labeled samples,

    K. Najafian, A. Ghanbari, I. Stavness, L. Jin, G. H. Shirdel, and F. Maleki, “A semi-self-supervised learning approach for wheat head detection using extremely small number of labeled samples,” in Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2021,...

    2021

  64. [71]

    Semi-self-supervised learning for se- mantic segmentation in images with dense patterns,

    K. Najafian, A. Ghanbari, M. Sabet Kish, M. Eramian, G. H. Shirdel, I. Stavness, L. Jin, and F. Maleki, “Semi-self-supervised learning for se- mantic segmentation in images with dense patterns,” Plant Phenomics, vol. 5, p. 0025, 2023

    2023

  65. [72]

    Tomato detection method using domain adaptive learning for dense planting environments

    L. Yang, H. Wenhui, Y . Huihuang, R. Yuan, W. Tan, J. Xiu, and Z. Jun, “Tomato detection method using domain adaptive learning for dense planting environments.” vol. 40, no. 13, 2024

    2024

  66. [74]

    Classifier-constrained deep adversarial domain adaptation for cross-domain semisupervised classification in remote sensing images,

    W. Teng, N. Wang, H. Shi, Y . Liu, and J. Wang, “Classifier-constrained deep adversarial domain adaptation for cross-domain semisupervised classification in remote sensing images,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 789–793, 2019

    2019

  67. [75]

    X. Liu, X. Liu, B. Hu, W. Ji, F. Xing, J. Lu, J. You, C.-C. J. Kuo, G. El Fakhri, and J. Woo, “Suosis,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , vol. 35, no. 3, 2021, pp. 2189– 2197

    2021

  68. [76]

    Subtype-aware dynamic unsupervised domain adaptation,

    X. Liu, F. Xing, J. You, J. Lu, C.-C. J. Kuo, G. El Fakhri, and J. Woo, “Subtype-aware dynamic unsupervised domain adaptation,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 2820–2834, 2022

    2022

  69. [77]

    Transfer adaptation learning for target recognition in sar images: A survey,

    X. Yang, L. Jiao, and Q. Pan, “Transfer adaptation learning for target recognition in sar images: A survey,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing , 2024

    2024

  70. [78]

    Generative adversarial nets,

    I. J. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. Warde-Farley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, and Y . Bengio, “Generative adversarial nets,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 27, 2014

    2014

  71. [79]

    Unsupervised domain adaptation by backpropagation,

    Y . Ganin and V . Lempitsky, “Unsupervised domain adaptation by backpropagation,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2015, pp. 1180–1189

    2015

  72. [80]

    The mnist database of handwritten digits,

    Y . LeCun, “The mnist database of handwritten digits,” http://yann. lecun. com/exdb/mnist/, 1998

    1998

  73. [81]

    Lsun: Construction of a large-scale image dataset using deep learning with humans in the loop,

    F. Yu, A. Seff, Y . Zhang, S. Song, T. Funkhouser, and J. Xiao, “Lsun: Construction of a large-scale image dataset using deep learning with humans in the loop,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.03365 , 2015

    2015 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images,

    A. Krizhevsky, G. Hinton et al., “Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images,” 2009

    2009

  75. [83]

    Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge,

    O. Russakovsky, J. Deng, H. Su, J. Krause, S. Satheesh, S. Ma, Z. Huang, A. Karpathy, A. Khosla, M. Bernstein et al., “Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge,” International journal of computer vision, vol. 115, pp. 211–252, 2015

    2015

  76. [84]

    Road segmentation for remote sensing images using adversarial spatial pyramid networks,

    P. Shamsolmoali, M. Zareapoor, H. Zhou, R. Wang, and J. Yang, “Road segmentation for remote sensing images using adversarial spatial pyramid networks,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 4673–4688, 2020

    2020

  77. [85]

    Unsupervised domain adaptation with adversarial self-training for crop classification using remote sensing images,

    G.-H. Kwak and N.-W. Park, “Unsupervised domain adaptation with adversarial self-training for crop classification using remote sensing images,” Remote Sensing, vol. 14, no. 18, p. 4639, 2022

    2022

  78. [87]

    Generative adversarial network- based full-space domain adaptation for land cover classification from multiple-source remote sensing images,

    S. Ji, D. Wang, and M. Luo, “Generative adversarial network- based full-space domain adaptation for land cover classification from multiple-source remote sensing images,” IEEE Transactions on Geo- science and Remote Sensing , vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 3816–3828, 2020

    2020

  79. [88]

    Standardgan: Multi-source domain adaptation for semantic segmentation of very high resolution satellite images by data standardization,

    O. Tasar, Y . Tarabalka, A. Giros, P. Alliez, and S. Clerc, “Standardgan: Multi-source domain adaptation for semantic segmentation of very high resolution satellite images by data standardization,” in Proceedings of 22 the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Rec...

    2020

  80. [89]

    Appearance based deep domain adaptation for the classification of aerial images,

    D. Wittich and F. Rottensteiner, “Appearance based deep domain adaptation for the classification of aerial images,” ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing , vol. 180, pp. 82–102, 2021

    2021

  81. [90]

    A novel unsupervised adversarial domain adaptation network for remotely sensed scene classification,

    W. Liu and F. Su, “A novel unsupervised adversarial domain adaptation network for remotely sensed scene classification,”International Journal of Remote Sensing , vol. 41, no. 16, pp. 6099–6116, 2020

    2020

  82. [91]

    Triplet adversarial domain adaptation for pixel-level classification of vhr remote sensing images,

    L. Yan, B. Fan, H. Liu, C. Huo, S. Xiang, and C. Pan, “Triplet adversarial domain adaptation for pixel-level classification of vhr remote sensing images,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 3558–3573, 2019

    2019

  83. [92]

    Cross-scene wetland mapping on hyperspectral remote sensing im- ages using adversarial domain adaptation network,

    Y . Huang, J. Peng, N. Chen, W. Sun, Q. Du, K. Ren, and K. Huang, “Cross-scene wetland mapping on hyperspectral remote sensing im- ages using adversarial domain adaptation network,” ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing , vol. 203, pp. 37–54, 2023

    2023

  84. [93]

    Domain adversarial neural networks for large-scale land cover classification,

    M. B. Bejiga, F. Melgani, and P. Beraldini, “Domain adversarial neural networks for large-scale land cover classification,” Remote Sensing , vol. 11, no. 10, p. 1153, 2019

    2019

  85. [94]

    Adversarial learning for knowledge adaptation from multiple remote sensing sources,

    M. M. Al Rahhal, Y . Bazi, H. Al-Hwiti, H. Alhichri, and N. Ala- jlan, “Adversarial learning for knowledge adaptation from multiple remote sensing sources,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 1451–1455, 2020

    2020

  86. [95]

    Domain adaptation using representation learning for the classification of remote sensing images,

    A. Elshamli, G. W. Taylor, A. Berg, and S. Areibi, “Domain adaptation using representation learning for the classification of remote sensing images,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observa- tions and Remote Sensing , vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 4198–4209, 2017

    2017

  87. [96]

    Domain- adversarial training of self-attention-based networks for land cover classification using multi-temporal sentinel-2 satellite imagery,

    M. Martini, V . Mazzia, A. Khaliq, and M. Chiaberge, “Domain- adversarial training of self-attention-based networks for land cover classification using multi-temporal sentinel-2 satellite imagery,”Remote Sensing, vol. 13, no. 13, p. 2564, 2021

    2021

  88. [97]

    Cross-sensor adversarial domain adaptation of landsat-8 and proba-v images for cloud detection,

    G. Mateo-Garc ´ıa, V . Laparra, D. L ´opez-Puigdollers, and L. G ´omez- Chova, “Cross-sensor adversarial domain adaptation of landsat-8 and proba-v images for cloud detection,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing , vol. 14, pp. 747–...

    2020

  89. [98]

    Deep neural network-based domain adaptation for classification of remote sensing images,

    L. Ma and J. Song, “Deep neural network-based domain adaptation for classification of remote sensing images,” Journal of Applied Remote Sensing, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 042 612–042 612, 2017

    2017

  90. [99]

    Stagewise unsupervised domain adaptation with adversarial self-training for road segmentation of remote-sensing images,

    L. Zhang, M. Lan, J. Zhang, and D. Tao, “Stagewise unsupervised domain adaptation with adversarial self-training for road segmentation of remote-sensing images,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 60, pp. 1–13, 2021

    2021

  91. [100]

    Unsupervised domain- invariant feature learning for cloud detection of remote sensing im- ages,

    J. Guo, J. Yang, H. Yue, X. Liu, and K. Li, “Unsupervised domain- invariant feature learning for cloud detection of remote sensing im- ages,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 60, pp. 1–15, 2021

    2021

  92. [101]

    Fcns in the wild: Pixel-level adversarial and constraint-based adaptation,

    J. Hoffman, D. Wang, F. Yu, and T. Darrell, “Fcns in the wild: Pixel-level adversarial and constraint-based adaptation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.02649, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  93. [102]

    Learning to adapt structured output space for semantic segmentation,

    Y .-H. Tsai, W.-C. Hung, S. Schulter, K. Sohn, M.-H. Yang, and M. Chandraker, “Learning to adapt structured output space for semantic segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2018, pp. 7472–7481

    2018

  94. [103]

    Advent: Adversarial entropy minimization for domain adaptation in semantic segmentation,

    T.-H. Vu, H. Jain, M. Bucher, M. Cord, and P. P ´erez, “Advent: Adversarial entropy minimization for domain adaptation in semantic segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on com- puter vision and pattern recognition , 2019, pp. 2517–2526

    2019

  95. [104]

    Bidirectional learning for domain adaptation of semantic segmentation,

    Y . Li, L. Yuan, and N. Vasconcelos, “Bidirectional learning for domain adaptation of semantic segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2019, pp. 6936–6945

    2019

  96. [105]

    Dfenet for domain adaptation-based remote sensing scene classification,

    X. Zhang, X. Yao, X. Feng, G. Cheng, and J. Han, “Dfenet for domain adaptation-based remote sensing scene classification,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 60, pp. 1–11, 2021

    2021

  97. [106]

    A two-stage adaptation network (tsan) for remote sensing scene classification in single-source-mixed-multiple-target domain adaptation (s2m2t da) scenarios,

    J. Zheng, W. Wu, S. Yuan, Y . Zhao, W. Li, L. Zhang, R. Dong, and H. Fu, “A two-stage adaptation network (tsan) for remote sensing scene classification in single-source-mixed-multiple-target domain adaptation (s2m2t da) scenarios,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Se...

    2021

  98. [107]

    Adversarial learning based discriminative domain adaptation for geospatial image analysis,

    N. Makkar, L. Yang, and S. Prasad, “Adversarial learning based discriminative domain adaptation for geospatial image analysis,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, vol. 15, pp. 150–162, 2021

    2021

  99. [108]

    Open set domain adaptation by backpropagation,

    K. Saito, S. Yamamoto, Y . Ushiku, and T. Harada, “Open set domain adaptation by backpropagation,” in Proceedings of the European con- ference on computer vision (ECCV) , 2018, pp. 153–168

    2018

  100. [109]

    A brief review of domain adaptation,

    A. Farahani, S. V oghoei, K. Rasheed, and H. R. Arabnia, “A brief review of domain adaptation,” Advances in data science and informa- tion engineering: proceedings from ICDATA 2020 and IKE 2020 , pp. 877–894, 2021

    2020

  101. [110]

    Learning transferable features with deep adaptation networks,

    M. Long, Y . Cao, J. Wang, and M. Jordan, “Learning transferable features with deep adaptation networks,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2015, pp. 97–105

    2015

  102. [111]

    Unsupervised domain adaptation by domain invariant projection,

    M. Baktashmotlagh, M. T. Harandi, B. C. Lovell, and M. Salzmann, “Unsupervised domain adaptation by domain invariant projection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , 2013, pp. 769–776

    2013

  103. [112]

    Wasserstein distance guided representation learning for domain adaptation,

    J. Shen, Y . Qu, W. Zhang, and Y . Yu, “Wasserstein distance guided representation learning for domain adaptation,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , vol. 32, no. 1, 2018

    2018

  104. [113]

    Deep coral: Correlation alignment for deep domain adaptation,

    B. Sun and K. Saenko, “Deep coral: Correlation alignment for deep domain adaptation,” in Computer vision–ECCV 2016 workshops: Am- sterdam, the Netherlands, October 8-10 and 15-16, 2016, proceedings, part III 14 . Springer, 2016, pp. 443–450

    2016

  105. [114]

    Unsupervised domain adaptation using transformers for sugarcane rows and gaps detection,

    A. dos Santos Ferreira, J. M. Junior, H. Pistori, F. Melgani, and W. N. Gonc ¸alves, “Unsupervised domain adaptation using transformers for sugarcane rows and gaps detection,” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, vol. 203, p. 107480, 2022

    2022

  106. [115]

    Enhancing domain adap- tation for plant diseases detection through masked image consistency in multi-granularity alignment,

    G. Guo, S. Lai, Q. Wu, Y . Shou, and W. Shi, “Enhancing domain adap- tation for plant diseases detection through masked image consistency in multi-granularity alignment,” Expert Systems with Applications , vol. 276, p. 127101, 2025

    2025

  107. [116]

    Cross-domain transfer learning for weed segmentation and mapping in precision farming using ground and uav images,

    J. Gao, W. Liao, D. Nuyttens, P. Lootens, W. Xue, E. Alexandersson, and J. Pieters, “Cross-domain transfer learning for weed segmentation and mapping in precision farming using ground and uav images,” Expert Systems with applications , vol. 246, p. 122980, 2024

    2024

  108. [117]

    Robust crop disease detection using multi-domain data augmentation and isolated test-time adaptation,

    R. Fu, J. Han, Y . Sun, S. Wang, M. A. Al-Absi, X. Wang, and H. Sun, “Robust crop disease detection using multi-domain data augmentation and isolated test-time adaptation,” Expert Systems with Applications , p. 127324, 2025

    2025

  109. [118]

    Deep transfer learning with joint adaptation networks,

    M. Long, H. Zhu, J. Wang, and M. I. Jordan, “Deep transfer learning with joint adaptation networks,” inInternational conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2017, pp. 2208–2217

    2017

  110. [119]

    Multi-representation adaptation network for cross-domain image clas- sification,

    Y . Zhu, F. Zhuang, J. Wang, J. Chen, Z. Shi, W. Wu, and Q. He, “Multi-representation adaptation network for cross-domain image clas- sification,” Neural Networks, vol. 119, pp. 214–221, 2019

    2019

  111. [120]

    Deep subdomain adaptation network for image classification,

    Y . Zhu, F. Zhuang, J. Wang, G. Ke, J. Chen, J. Bian, H. Xiong, and Q. He, “Deep subdomain adaptation network for image classification,” IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems , vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 1713–1722, 2020

    2020

  112. [121]

    A review of single-source deep unsupervised visual domain adaptation,

    S. Zhao, X. Yue, S. Zhang, B. Li, H. Zhao, B. Wu, R. Krishna, J. E. Gonzalez, A. L. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, S. A. Seshia et al., “A review of single-source deep unsupervised visual domain adaptation,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 33, no. 2, ...

    2020

  113. [122]

    A weakly pseudo- supervised decorrelated subdomain adaptation framework for cross- domain land-use classification,

    Q. Zhu, Y . Sun, Q. Guan, L. Wang, and W. Lin, “A weakly pseudo- supervised decorrelated subdomain adaptation framework for cross- domain land-use classification,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 60, pp. 1–13, 2022

    2022

  114. [123]

    Unsupervised domain adaptation for in-field cotton boll status identification,

    Y . Li, Z. Cao, H. Lu, and W. Xu, “Unsupervised domain adaptation for in-field cotton boll status identification,” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, vol. 178, p. 105745, 2020

    2020

  115. [124]

    Tcanet for domain adaptation of hyperspectral images,

    A. S. Garea, D. B. Heras, and F. Arg ¨uello, “Tcanet for domain adaptation of hyperspectral images,” Remote Sensing, vol. 11, no. 19, p. 2289, 2019

    2019

  116. [125]

    A two-stage deep domain adaptation method for hyperspectral image classification,

    Z. Li, X. Tang, W. Li, C. Wang, C. Liu, and J. He, “A two-stage deep domain adaptation method for hyperspectral image classification,” Remote Sensing, vol. 12, no. 7, p. 1054, 2020

    2020

  117. [126]

    Topological structure and semantic information transfer network for cross-scene hyperspectral image classification,

    Y . Zhang, W. Li, M. Zhang, Y . Qu, R. Tao, and H. Qi, “Topological structure and semantic information transfer network for cross-scene hyperspectral image classification,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Net- works and Learning Systems , 2021

    2021

  118. [127]

    Joint correlation alignment- based graph neural network for domain adaptation of multitemporal hyperspectral remote sensing images,

    W. Wang, L. Ma, M. Chen, and Q. Du, “Joint correlation alignment- based graph neural network for domain adaptation of multitemporal hyperspectral remote sensing images,” pp. 3170–3184, 2021

    2021

  119. [128]

    Attention multisource fusion-based deep few-shot learning for hyperspectral image classification,

    X. Liang, Y . Zhang, and J. Zhang, “Attention multisource fusion-based deep few-shot learning for hyperspectral image classification,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, vol. 14, pp. 8773–8788, 2021. 23

    2021

  120. [129]

    Deep transfer learning for cross-species plant disease diagnosis adapting mixed subdomains,

    K. Yan, X. Guo, Z. Ji, and X. Zhou, “Deep transfer learning for cross-species plant disease diagnosis adapting mixed subdomains,” IEEE/ACM transactions on computational biology and bioinformatics , vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 2555–2564, 2021

    2021

  121. [130]

    Open set self and across domain adaptation for tomato disease recognition with deep learning techniques,

    A. Fuentes, S. Yoon, T. Kim, and D. S. Park, “Open set self and across domain adaptation for tomato disease recognition with deep learning techniques,” Frontiers in plant science , vol. 12, p. 758027, 2021

    2021

  122. [131]

    From laboratory to field: Unsupervised domain adaptation for plant disease recognition in the wild,

    X. Wu, X. Fan, P. Luo, S. D. Choudhury, T. Tjahjadi, and C. Hu, “From laboratory to field: Unsupervised domain adaptation for plant disease recognition in the wild,” Plant Phenomics, vol. 5, p. 0038, 2023

    2023

  123. [132]

    Domain adaptation network for cross-scene classification,

    E. Othman, Y . Bazi, F. Melgani, H. Alhichri, N. Alajlan, and M. Zuair, “Domain adaptation network for cross-scene classification,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 55, no. 8, pp. 4441–4456, 2017

    2017

  124. [133]

    Multisource compensation network for remote sensing cross-domain scene classification,

    X. Lu, T. Gong, and X. Zheng, “Multisource compensation network for remote sensing cross-domain scene classification,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 2504–2515, 2019

    2019

  125. [134]

    Attention-based multiscale residual adaptation network for cross-scene classification,

    S. Zhu, B. Du, L. Zhang, and X. Li, “Attention-based multiscale residual adaptation network for cross-scene classification,” IEEE Trans- actions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 60, pp. 1–15, 2021

    2021

  126. [135]

    Transfer learning for sar image classification via deep joint distribution adaptation networks,

    J. Geng, X. Deng, X. Ma, and W. Jiang, “Transfer learning for sar image classification via deep joint distribution adaptation networks,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 5377–5392, 2020

    2020

  127. [136]

    “canopy fingerprints

    T. J. Young, T. Z. Jubery, C. N. Carley, M. Carroll, S. Sarkar, A. K. Singh, A. Singh, and B. Ganapathysubramanian, ““canopy fingerprints” for characterizing three-dimensional point cloud data of soybean canopies,” Frontiers in plant science , vol. 14, p. 1141153, 2023

    2023

  128. [137]

    Cla: A self-supervised contrastive learning method for leaf disease identification with domain adaptation,

    R. Zhao, Y . Zhu, and Y . Li, “Cla: A self-supervised contrastive learning method for leaf disease identification with domain adaptation,” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture , vol. 211, p. 107967, 2023

    2023

  129. [138]

    Using deep learning for image-based plant disease detection,

    S. P. Mohanty, D. P. Hughes, and M. Salath ´e, “Using deep learning for image-based plant disease detection,” Frontiers in plant science, vol. 7, p. 215232, 2016

    2016

  130. [139]

    Plantdoc: A dataset for visual plant disease detection,

    D. Singh, N. Jain, P. Jain, P. Kayal, S. Kumawat, and N. Batra, “Plantdoc: A dataset for visual plant disease detection,” in Proceedings of the 7th ACM IKDD CoDS and 25th COMAD , 2020, pp. 249–253

    2020

  131. [140]

    The plant pathology challenge 2020 data set to classify foliar disease of apples,

    R. Thapa, K. Zhang, N. Snavely, S. Belongie, and A. Khan, “The plant pathology challenge 2020 data set to classify foliar disease of apples,” Applications in plant sciences , vol. 8, no. 9, p. e11390, 2020

    2020

  132. [142]

    Deep learning in agriculture: A survey,

    A. Kamilaris and F. X. Prenafeta-Bold ´u, “Deep learning in agriculture: A survey,” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture , vol. 147, pp. 70–90, 2018

    2018

  133. [143]

    A review of machine learning algorithms for remote sensing data classification,

    S. Zhang, W. Li, and Q. Du, “A review of machine learning algorithms for remote sensing data classification,” Remote Sensing, vol. 13, no. 20, p. 4349, 2021

    2021

  134. [144]

    Adversarial discrim- inative domain adaptation,

    E. Tzeng, J. Hoffman, K. Saenko, and T. Darrell, “Adversarial discrim- inative domain adaptation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2017, pp. 7167– 7176

    2017

  135. [145]

    Domain-adversarial training of neural networks,

    Y . Ganin, E. Ustinova, H. Ajakan, P. Germain, H. Larochelle, F. Lavi- olette, M. Marchand, and V . Lempitsky, “Domain-adversarial training of neural networks,” Journal of Machine Learning Research , vol. 17, no. 59, pp. 1–35, 2016

    2016

  136. [146]

    Deep learn- ing in environmental remote sensing: Achievements and challenges,

    Q. Yuan, H. Shen, T. Li, G. Li, J. Kang, and L. Zhang, “Deep learn- ing in environmental remote sensing: Achievements and challenges,” Remote Sensing of Environment , vol. 241, p. 111716, 2020

    2020

  137. [147]

    Deep learning for land cover classification and change detection using multi-temporal remote sensing data,

    L. Zhong, L. Zhang, D. Tuia, and D. Liang, “Deep learning for land cover classification and change detection using multi-temporal remote sensing data,” ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing , vol. 156, pp. 152–163, 2019

    2019

  138. [148]

    A survey of few-shot learning in agricultural image recognition,

    Y . Lu, J. Wu, Y . Zhang, S. Chen, and Q. Meng, “A survey of few-shot learning in agricultural image recognition,” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, vol. 187, p. 106285, 2021

    2021

  139. [149]

    Pu and S

    R. Pu and S. Bell, Hyperspectral Remote Sensing of Vegetation. CRC Press, 2021

    2021

  140. [150]

    Deep learning in remote sensing applications: A meta-analysis and review,

    L. Ma, T. Liu, X. Zhang, Y . Ye, L. Wang, M. Zong, and L. Zhang, “Deep learning in remote sensing applications: A meta-analysis and review,” ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing , vol. 152, pp. 166–177, 2019

    2019

  141. [151]

    Explainable artificial intelligence: Understanding, visualizing and interpreting deep learning models,

    W. Samek, T. Wiegand, and K.-R. M ¨uller, “Explainable artificial intelligence: Understanding, visualizing and interpreting deep learning models,” ITU Journal: ICT Discoveries, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 39–48, 2017

    2017

  142. [152]

    Prospect: A model of leaf optical properties spectra,

    S. Jacquemoud and F. Baret, “Prospect: A model of leaf optical properties spectra,” Remote Sensing of Environment , vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 75–91, 1990

    1990

  143. [153]

    Spatio-temporal graph deep neural network for short-term wind speed forecasting,

    Y . Wang, P. Guo, L. Zhao, Y . Zhang, and Y . Liu, “Spatio-temporal graph deep neural network for short-term wind speed forecasting,” IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy , vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 477– 487, 2021

    2021

  144. [154]

    Rethinking pre-training and self-training,

    B. Zoph, G. Ghiasi, T.-Y . Lin, Y . Cui, H. Liu, E. D. Cubuk, and Q. V . Le, “Rethinking pre-training and self-training,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , vol. 33, 2020, pp. 3833– 3845

    2020

  145. [155]

    Deep learning for multi-modal data registration: A review,

    Q. Zhu, M. Yang, D. Li, X. Huang, Q. Yuan, and Z. Xu, “Deep learning for multi-modal data registration: A review,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 57, no. 9, pp. 6529–6549, 2019

    2019

  146. [156]

    Federated machine learning: Concept and applications,

    Q. Yang, Y . Liu, T. Chen, and Y . Tong, “Federated machine learning: Concept and applications,” ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1–19, 2019

    2019

  147. [157]

    The algorithmic foundations of differential privacy,

    C. Dwork and A. Roth, “The algorithmic foundations of differential privacy,” Foundations and Trends in Theoretical Computer Science , vol. 9, no. 3-4, pp. 211–407, 2014

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.