Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 67 references

DAM-Net: Domain Adaptation Network with Micro-Labeled Fine-Tuning for Change Detection

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A change-detection network can be moved to a new dataset with 16 labeled images, matching semi-supervised models that use 10% labels.

desk verdict A plausible and potentially useful domain adaptation recipe for change detection, but the key efficiency claim rests on a tables whose numbers are internally inconsistent and baselines whose training details are absent. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.13748 v1 pith:JN3Y7IVF submitted 2025-04-18 cs.CV

Hongjia Chen , Xin Xu , Fangling Pu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords changedetectiondomainadaptationremotesensingimageryadversariallearningmicro-labeledfine-tuningsemi-supervisedconsistencyregularizationmulti-temporaltransformer
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

Change detection—deciding which pixels differ between two images of the same scene—usually breaks when a trained model is applied to a new city or sensor. DAM-Net attacks this with two linked ideas: adversarial domain adaptation aligns features from the source and target datasets, then a micro-labeled fine-tuning stage lets the user annotate fewer than 1% of target images (10–20 samples) and still get large gains. The key sample-selection rule is the domain discriminator itself: images it is most confident come from the target domain are the ones most worth labeling. On LEVIR-CD to WHU-CD transfer, the paper reports F1=0.8309 with 16 labeled samples, comparable to or better than semi-supervised baselines trained with 10% labels.

What carries the argument

The central object is a CD-oriented adversarial domain adaptation pipeline with three redesigned parts. A segmentation-discriminator consumes intermediate prediction-head features rather than final maps, because change targets have no fixed layout across domains; it outputs a matrix of domain predictions so different image regions receive adversarial supervision. An alternating three-step schedule trains the segmentation on source labels, trains the discriminator to tell source from target features, then trains the fusion modules to fool it, avoiding fragile balancing of segmentation and adversarial losses. Micro-Labeled Fine-Tuning then uses discriminator confidence to rank target images, annotates only the hardest ones, and fine-tunes with a pseudo-label consistency loss called CDMatch to avoid overfitting on so few labels.

What would settle it

Train the two semi-supervised comparison methods under exactly DAM-Net's schedule, optimizer, and 100-epoch budget with 0.3%, 5%, and 10% target labels; if either reaches or exceeds F1=0.8309 at 0.3% under that protocol, the label-efficiency claim in the comparison table collapses. A cheaper check: repeat the 16-sample fine-tuning with random sample selection and report the distribution of F1; if random selection matches the discriminator-selected result, the selection claim is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the adversarial discriminator built for domain adaptation can double as a label-selection oracle, and that a consistency-regularized fine-tune on those few labels can close most of the remaining domain gap. The architecture freezes the image encoder and prediction head during adaptation and trains only the multi-temporal and multi-scale fusion modules against a matrix-output discriminator; this keeps the adaptation cheap and avoids the instability of hand-tuned loss weights. With 16 WHU-CD samples (0.3%), DAM-Net reaches F1=0.8309 and IoU=0.7108 on LEVIR→WHU transfer, above the same-budget results of two semi-supervised baselines and close to their 10% results; the reverse WHU→LEVIR direction also improves but remains weaker. The paper frames this as a practical trade-off: a tiny, carefully chosen label budget substitutes for either full retraining or a large semi-supervised label set.

Load-bearing premise

The headline result assumes the comparison methods were tuned with the same care and compute as DAM-Net, since their training settings are not disclosed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the 0.3%-vs-10% result holds, cross-dataset change detection can be deployed with an annotation budget of dozens of images instead of thousands.
  • Since freezing the encoder and prediction head improves F1 over training all parts, large pre-trained backbones can be reused for change detection without fine-tuning their parameters.
  • The discriminator's confidence becomes a practical active-learning signal for choosing which new-domain images to label.
  • The gap between LEVIR→WHU and WHU→LEVIR suggests domain adaptation can transfer from a diverse source to a simpler target, but the reverse is limited by source-domain coverage.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same discriminator-confidence criterion could be tested as a general active-learning rule for other dense prediction tasks, since it does not depend on change-specific structure.
  • Editorial inference: the small gains from 0.3% to 10% labels (F1 0.8309 to 0.8407) suggest that beyond a few critical samples, the adversarial adaptation stage is doing most of the work; a direct ablation of label quantity with a fixed selection rule would isolate how much of the claim comes from selection versus labeled fine-tuning.
  • Editorial inference: a natural comparison no one has run is a fully supervised model trained on the same 16 images without the adversarial adaptation stage; it would quantify how much of DAM-Net's gain comes from domain alignment alone.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DAM-Net, a change detection (CD) architecture that combines adversarial domain adaptation with a micro-labeled fine-tuning (MLFT) stage. The backbone is based on the authors' previous CD networks, augmented with a Hiera encoder, a Multi-Temporal Transformer, and a matrix-output discriminator trained with an alternating schedule. The headline claim is that after unsupervised adaptation from LEVIR-CD to WHU-CD, fine-tuning on only 16 labeled samples (about 0.3% of the target dataset) yields performance comparable to semi-supervised baselines trained with 10% labeled target data. Experiments are reported for both transfer directions, together with ablations of the ADA components and of the sample-selection strategy.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper would provide a practical demonstration that a tiny, discriminator-selected label budget can close much of the gap between unsupervised domain adaptation and semi-supervised learning for change detection, while also contributing an open-source implementation in a relatively sparse area. The ablation on which modules to freeze during adaptation is a useful design insight. However, the evaluation contains an internal inconsistency in the key comparison table and several reproducibility gaps, so the significance depends on whether these issues can be resolved in revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Table VI] In the 10% labeled-data column for DAM-Net, the reported F1=0.8407 and IoU=0.8160 cannot both be correct: for binary change detection the two are related by IoU = F1/(2 - F1), which gives IoU ≈ 0.725 for F1=0.8407. Every other row in Table VI satisfies this relation to three decimal places, so the issue is not a global property of the metric definitions but a local reporting or computation error in the exact table used to support the abstract's headline claim. Please re-compute all entries and verify that the 'comparable to 10%-labeled semi-supervised methods' conclusion remains valid with corrected metrics.
  2. [Section IV-E] The comparison of DAM-Net with SemiCD and C2F-SemiCD is central to the paper's main claim, but the training protocol for those baselines is not disclosed. Section IV-B gives implementation details only for DAM-Net; the paper does not state epochs, learning rates, loss weights, augmentation schedules, or how the labeled and unlabeled batches were constructed for SemiCD and C2F-SemiCD. Without this information, the 0.3%-versus-10% comparison cannot be reproduced and may reflect under-tuned baselines. Please provide the complete hyperparameter and training setup for all baselines, or release their code.
  3. [Section III-C] The MLFT sample-selection step is a core contribution, but its operational definition is missing. The discriminator is described in Section III-B as producing a matrix output, yet the paper does not specify how a scalar 'probability of coming from the target domain' is obtained from that matrix for ranking whole images, nor how the 'minimal change regions' exclusion is implemented. Since Table V compares selection strategies and attributes a large advantage to discriminator-based selection, these details are necessary for the claim to be testable and reproducible.
  4. [Section IV-D] The ablation in Table III tests which modules to train within the ADA framework, but there is no source-only baseline without adversarial adaptation. Without a no-ADA result for the same architecture and training schedule, the reported gains over CGDA-CD (F1=0.6283) and SFDA-CD (F1=0.6376) cannot be attributed to the proposed segmentation-discriminator and alternating strategy rather than to the stronger backbone (Hiera) or other training choices. Please report a 'no ADA' baseline, e.g., DAM-Net trained on the source domain only and evaluated directly on the target domain.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains an apparent typo: 'adversarial domain adaptation to CD for, utilizing' contains an extraneous 'for,' that should be removed.
  2. [Section V] The discussion states that a network trained on LEVIR-CD reaches F1 above 50% on WHU-CD and the reverse direction below 30%, but Table II reports DAM-Net without MLFT on WHU-CD→LEVIR-CD with F1=0.6044. Please clarify whether the Section V numbers refer to a simpler source-only model and provide those baseline numbers, so the two statements do not appear contradictory.
  3. [Table VI footnote / Section IV-B] The table footnote describes the training data only for the semi-supervised methods. It should state explicitly for DAM-Net how the full LEVIR-CD source data, the 16 labeled WHU-CD samples, and the unlabeled WHU-CD samples are combined in the MLFT stage, since the batch construction in Section IV-B (1 labeled target sample per batch) is otherwise not immediately clear.
  4. [Appendix A] There are minor text errors in the appendix, including 'and and incorporate' in the spatio-temporal position embedding description, and the notation for P_temporal is not fully consistent with the dimension description that follows.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's central claims are empirical comparisons against external baselines, and the self-cited components are prior published work rather than fitted inputs.

full rationale

DAM-Net's claims are empirical and benchmarked externally. The adversarial domain adaptation module is evaluated against ablations (Table III, Table IV) and against prior DA methods CGDA-CD and SFDA-CD; the micro-labeled fine-tuning is evaluated against random selection and detection-performance-based selection (Table V); and the headline 0.3%-labels claim is compared with SemiCD and C2F-SemiCD using the same WHU-CD label proportions (Table VI). No equation in the paper defines the predicted quantity in terms of the fitted quantity: Eqs. (1)-(4) are standard consistency and cross-entropy losses, and the reported F1/IoU values are computed on a held-out validation set. The self-citations to RDP-Net [33], SRC-Net [34], and PM-FFM [34] are used as backbone/fusion components and a loss term, but those are previously published, externally checkable results and are not the basis of the headline claim. The sample-selection mechanism does not make the reported improvement true by construction, because the improvement is measured against random and detection-performance baselines. The internally inconsistent 10%-label IoU in Table VI and the under-specified baseline training details are correctness and reproducibility concerns, not circularity. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or conceptual entities. Its free parameters are training hyperparameters and selection rules that are hand-set rather than derived. The main assumptions are about transferability of features and the validity of the baseline comparison, both standard domain-adaptation premises but only partially tested.

free parameters (5)
  • MLFT loss weights alpha, beta, gamma = alpha=30/46, beta=1/46, gamma=15/46
    Eq. (4) defines the fine-tuning loss as a weighted sum of consistency, source-domain, and micro-labeled losses. The weights are hand-set and no sensitivity analysis is provided; the reported fine-tuning gains depend on them.
  • ADA and MLFT learning rates and schedules = 1e-5 and 5e-6, both decaying by 0.8 every 5 epochs
    Section IV-B gives these values without ablation. They are chosen by hand and could materially affect the reported convergence behavior.
  • Number of CX-Blocks in prediction head = 3
    Section IV-B fixes this architectural choice without ablation; it comes from the ConvNeXt V2 design and is not central to the domain-adaptation claim, but it is still a hand-set parameter.
  • Micro-label sample budget = 16 labeled samples (approximately 0.3% of WHU-CD training data)
    Section III-C says 10-20 samples are needed and Section IV-E uses 16. The headline '0.3% labels' claim depends directly on this chosen budget.
  • Sample exclusion threshold for minimal change regions = not specified
    Section III-C states that samples with minimal change regions are avoided during MLFT selection, but the threshold is never defined. This hand-chosen selection rule can affect the magnitude of the reported fine-tuning gains.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The prediction head trained on the source domain generalizes to the target domain, so it can be frozen during adversarial domain adaptation.
    Section III-B makes this design choice, and ablation a110 versus a111 in Table III supports it empirically. It is still an assumption about feature transferability that could fail for more distant domains.
  • domain assumption The domain discriminator's target-domain confidence is a valid proxy for which target samples are most informative for fine-tuning.
    Section III-C uses discriminator confidence to select the 16 labeled samples. Table V compares this against random and detection-based selection, but the proxy itself is assumed to capture adaptation value.
  • domain assumption LEVIR-CD and WHU-CD share the same change semantics, so feature alignment transfers useful knowledge.
    This is the standard domain-adaptation premise for the experimental setup in Section IV-A. Both datasets are building-change datasets, but they differ in resolution, scene diversity, and sensor characteristics.
  • domain assumption The reimplemented SemiCD and C2F-SemiCD baselines were trained under comparable conditions and are not under-tuned relative to DAM-Net.
    Section IV-E reports baseline results but gives no training hyperparameters, epochs, or validation protocol for the baselines. The headline comparison to 10% semi-supervised methods depends on this assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DAM-Net: Domain Adaptation Network with Micro-Labeled Fine-Tuning for Change Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JN3Y7IVF

@misc{pith2026250413748,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DAM-Net: Domain Adaptation Network with Micro-Labeled Fine-Tuning for Change Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JN3Y7IVF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.13748}
}
read the original abstract

Change detection (CD) in remote sensing imagery plays a crucial role in various applications such as urban planning, damage assessment, and resource management. While deep learning approaches have significantly advanced CD performance, current methods suffer from poor domain adaptability, requiring extensive labeled data for retraining when applied to new scenarios. This limitation severely restricts their practical applications across different datasets. In this work, we propose DAM-Net: a Domain Adaptation Network with Micro-Labeled Fine-Tuning for CD. Our network introduces adversarial domain adaptation to CD for, utilizing a specially designed segmentation-discriminator and alternating training strategy to enable effective transfer between domains. Additionally, we propose a novel Micro-Labeled Fine-Tuning approach that strategically selects and labels a minimal amount of samples (less than 1%) to enhance domain adaptation. The network incorporates a Multi-Temporal Transformer for feature fusion and optimized backbone structure based on previous research. Experiments conducted on the LEVIR-CD and WHU-CD datasets demonstrate that DAM-Net significantly outperforms existing domain adaptation methods, achieving comparable performance to semi-supervised approaches that require 10% labeled data while using only 0.3% labeled samples. Our approach significantly advances cross-dataset CD applications and provides a new paradigm for efficient domain adaptation in remote sensing. The source code of DAM-Net will be made publicly available upon publication.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.13748 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Architecture of the proposed DAM-Net [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Structure of MT-Transformer. We argue that for the CD task, even across different datasets, the main change feature extraction has already been completed by the first three stages, and the prediction head parameters can be generalizable. Moreover, the image encoder has been sufficiently trained on large-scale datasets, so it requires min￾imal or no fine-tuning. During domain adaptation, only the parameters of multi-… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Simplified architecture of our ADA. TABLE I STEPS OF ALTERNATING TRAINING STRATEGY. Step Description Training Domain Training Parts 1 Training DAM-Net Source domain Multi-Temporal Feature Fusion, Multi-Scale Feature Fusion, Prediction 2 Training Discriminator Source domain, target domain Discriminator 3 Training segmentation network Source domain, target domain Multi-Temporal Feature Fusion, Multi-Scale Feature Fusi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Framework of CDMatch. However, if we train the network using only these labeled samples, the network is very prone to overfitting. Therefore, we also need to generate pseudo-labels for a large amount of unlabeled data. At this point, we introduced the idea of FixMatch …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a)-(e) are results from LEVIR-CD → WHU-CD. (f)-(j) are results from WHU-CD → LEVIR-CD. (a), (b), (f), and (g) are the original images. (c) and (h) are the ground truth. The results of (d) (i) our DAM-Net w/o MLFT, (e) (j) our DAM-Net. The false positives and false neg…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a)-(f) are results on WHU-CD Dataset (For semi-supervised methods, the entire LEVIR-CD dataset with full annotations alongside the WHU-CD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Review Article Digital Change Detection Techniques us- ing Remotely-Sensed Data,

    A. Singh, “Review Article Digital Change Detection Techniques us- ing Remotely-Sensed Data,” International Journal of Remote Sensing , vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 989–1003, 1989

    work page 1989

  2. [2]

    A novel framework for the design of change-detection systems for very-high-resolution remote sensing im- ages,

    L. Bruzzone and F. Bovolo, “A novel framework for the design of change-detection systems for very-high-resolution remote sensing im- ages,” Proceedings of the IEEE , vol. 101, no. 3, pp. 609–630, 2012

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    DA2Net: Distraction- Attention-Driven Adversarial Network for Robust Remote Sensing Im- age Scene Classification,

    R. Yang, F. Pu, Z. Xu, C. Ding, and X. Xu, “DA2Net: Distraction- Attention-Driven Adversarial Network for Robust Remote Sensing Im- age Scene Classification,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters , 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    AMN: Attention Metric Network for One-Shot Remote Sensing Image Scene Classification,

    X. Li, F. Pu, R. Yang, R. Gui, and X. Xu, “AMN: Attention Metric Network for One-Shot Remote Sensing Image Scene Classification,” Remote Sensing , vol. 12, no. 24, p. 4046, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Landslide inventory mapping from bitemporal images using deep convolutional neural networks,

    T. Lei, Y . Zhang, Z. Lv, S. Li, S. Liu, and A. K. Nandi, “Landslide inventory mapping from bitemporal images using deep convolutional neural networks,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters , vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 982–986, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Optical remote sensing image change detection based on attention mechanism and image difference,

    X. Peng, R. Zhong, Z. Li, and Q. Li, “Optical remote sensing image change detection based on attention mechanism and image difference,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 59, no. 9, pp. 7296–7307, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Fully convolutional networks for multisource building extraction from an open aerial and satellite imagery data set,

    S. Ji, S. Wei, and M. Lu, “Fully convolutional networks for multisource building extraction from an open aerial and satellite imagery data set,” IEEE Transactions on geoscience and remote sensing , vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 574–586, 2018

    2018

  8. [8]

    Updating the 2001 national land cover database impervious surface products to 2006 using landsat imagery change detection methods,

    G. Xian and C. Homer, “Updating the 2001 national land cover database impervious surface products to 2006 using landsat imagery change detection methods,” Remote sensing of environment , vol. 114, no. 8, pp. 1676–1686, 2010

    work page 2001

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    Remote sensing of alpine lake water environment changes on the tibetan plateau and surroundings: A review,

    C. Song, B. Huang, L. Ke, and K. S. Richards, “Remote sensing of alpine lake water environment changes on the tibetan plateau and surroundings: A review,” ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing , vol. 92, pp. 26–37, 2014

    2014

  2. [10]

    Fully convolutional change detection framework with generative adversarial network for unsupervised, weakly supervised and regional supervised change detection,

    C. Wu, B. Du, and L. Zhang, “Fully convolutional change detection framework with generative adversarial network for unsupervised, weakly supervised and regional supervised change detection,” IEEE Transac- tions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 45, no. 8, pp....

    2023

  3. [11]

    Change detection in multisource vhr images via deep siamese convolutional multiple- layers recurrent neural network,

    H. Chen, C. Wu, B. Du, L. Zhang, and L. Wang, “Change detection in multisource vhr images via deep siamese convolutional multiple- layers recurrent neural network,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 2848–2864, 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    Transunetcd: A hybrid transformer network for change detection in optical remote-sensing images,

    Q. Li, R. Zhong, X. Du, and Y . Du, “Transunetcd: A hybrid transformer network for change detection in optical remote-sensing images,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 60, pp. 1–19, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition,

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

    1998

  6. [14]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, “Attention is all you need,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017

    2017

  7. [15]

    Mamba: Linear-time sequence modeling with selective state spaces,

    A. Gu and T. Dao, “Mamba: Linear-time sequence modeling with selective state spaces,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00752 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    On the parameterization and initialization of diagonal state space models,

    A. Gu, K. Goel, A. Gupta, and C. R ´e, “On the parameterization and initialization of diagonal state space models,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 35, pp. 35 971–35 983, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Finding structure in time,

    J. L. Elman, “Finding structure in time,” Cognitive science , vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 179–211, 1990

    1990

  10. [18]

    Long short-term memory,

    S. Hochreiter, “Long short-term memory,” Neural Computation MIT- Press, 1997

    1997

  11. [19]

    Deep learning,

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

    2015

  12. [20]

    Change de- tection from remotely sensed images: From pixel-based to object-based approaches,

    M. Hussain, D. Chen, A. Cheng, H. Wei, and D. Stanley, “Change de- tection from remotely sensed images: From pixel-based to object-based approaches,” ISPRS Journal of photogrammetry and remote sensing , vol. 80, pp. 91–106, 2013

    2013

  13. [21]

    Change-vector analysis in mul- titemporal space: A tool to detect and categorize land-cover change processes using high temporal-resolution satellite data,

    E. F. Lambin and A. H. Strahlers, “Change-vector analysis in mul- titemporal space: A tool to detect and categorize land-cover change processes using high temporal-resolution satellite data,” Remote sensing of environment, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 231–244, 1994

    1994

  14. [22]

    Ica and kernel ica for change detection in multispectral remote sensing images,

    S. Marchesi and L. Bruzzone, “Ica and kernel ica for change detection in multispectral remote sensing images,” in 2009 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium , vol. 2. IEEE, 2009, pp. II–980

    2009

  15. [23]

    Change detection based on artificial intelligence: State-of-the-art and challenges,

    W. Shi, M. Zhang, R. Zhang, S. Chen, and Z. Zhan, “Change detection based on artificial intelligence: State-of-the-art and challenges,” Remote Sensing, vol. 12, no. 10, p. 1688, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Hypersigma: Hyperspectral intelligence comprehension foundation model,

    D. Wang, M. Hu, Y . Jin, Y . Miao, J. Yang, Y . Xu, X. Qin, J. Ma, L. Sun, C. Li, C. Fu, H. Chen, C. Han, N. Yokoya, J. Zhang, M. Xu, L. Liu, L. Zhang, C. Wu, B. Du, D. Tao, and L. Zhang, “Hypersigma: Hyperspectral intelligence comprehension foundation model,” arXiv preprint a...

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Deep learning in remote sensing: A comprehensive review and list of resources,

    X. X. Zhu, D. Tuia, L. Mou, G.-S. Xia, L. Zhang, F. Xu, and F. Fraun- dorfer, “Deep learning in remote sensing: A comprehensive review and list of resources,” IEEE geoscience and remote sensing magazine , vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 8–36, 2017

    2017

  18. [26]

    Skysense: A multi-modal remote sensing foundation model towards universal interpretation for earth observation imagery,

    X. Guo, J. Lao, B. Dang, Y . Zhang, L. Yu, L. Ru, L. Zhong, Z. Huang, K. Wu, D. Hu et al. , “Skysense: A multi-modal remote sensing foundation model towards universal interpretation for earth observation imagery,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision an...

    2024

  19. [27]

    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

  20. [28]

    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: Ams- terdam, The Netherlands, October 8-10 and 15-16, 2016, Proceedings, Part III 14 . Springer, 2016, pp. 443–450

    2016

  21. [29]

    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. 13

    2016

  22. [30]

    Generative adversarial networks,

    I. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. Warde-Farley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, and Y . Bengio, “Generative adversarial networks,” Communications of the ACM , vol. 63, no. 11, pp. 139–144, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    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

  24. [32]

    Uncertainty-guided source-free domain adaptation,

    S. Roy, M. Trapp, A. Pilzer, J. Kannala, N. Sebe, E. Ricci, and A. Solin, “Uncertainty-guided source-free domain adaptation,” in European con- ference on computer vision . Springer, 2022, pp. 537–555

    2022

  25. [33]

    Rdp-net: Region detail preserving network for change detection,

    H. Chen, F. Pu, R. Yang, R. Tang, and X. Xu, “Rdp-net: Region detail preserving network for change detection,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 60, pp. 1–10, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    Src-net: Bi-temporal spatial relationship concerned network for change detection,

    H. Chen, X. Xu, and F. Pu, “Src-net: Bi-temporal spatial relationship concerned network for change detection,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing , pp. 1–13, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    A2dwqpe: Adaptive and automated data-driven water quality parameter estimation,

    Y . Hu, F. Pu, C. Kong, R. Yang, H. Chen, and X. Xu, “A2dwqpe: Adaptive and automated data-driven water quality parameter estimation,” Journal of Hydrology , vol. 626, p. 130363, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Visual global-salient guided network for remote sensing image-text retrieval,

    Y . He, X. Xu, H. Chen, J. Li, and F. Pu, “Visual global-salient guided network for remote sensing image-text retrieval,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Change detection using landsat time series: A review of frequencies, preprocessing, algorithms, and applications,

    Z. Zhu, “Change detection using landsat time series: A review of frequencies, preprocessing, algorithms, and applications,” ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing , vol. 130, pp. 370–384, 2017

    2017

  30. [38]

    Urban change detection for multispectral earth observation using convolutional neural networks,

    R. C. Daudt, B. Le Saux, A. Boulch, and Y . Gousseau, “Urban change detection for multispectral earth observation using convolutional neural networks,” in IGARSS 2018-2018 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium . Ieee, 2018, pp. 2115–2118

    2018

  31. [39]

    Fully convolutional siamese networks for change detection,

    R. C. Daudt, B. Le Saux, and A. Boulch, “Fully convolutional siamese networks for change detection,” in 2018 25th IEEE international con- ference on image processing (ICIP) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 4063–4067

    2018

  32. [40]

    End-to-end change detection for high resolution satellite images using improved unet++,

    D. Peng, Y . Zhang, and H. Guan, “End-to-end change detection for high resolution satellite images using improved unet++,” Remote Sensing , vol. 11, no. 11, p. 1382, 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    Snunet-cd: A densely connected siamese network for change detection of vhr images,

    S. Fang, K. Li, J. Shao, and Z. Li, “Snunet-cd: A densely connected siamese network for change detection of vhr images,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters , vol. 19, pp. 1–5, 2021

    2021

  34. [42]

    Unet++: A nested u-net architecture for medical image segmenta- tion,

    Z. Zhou, M. M. Rahman Siddiquee, N. Tajbakhsh, and J. Liang, “Unet++: A nested u-net architecture for medical image segmenta- tion,” in Deep Learning in Medical Image Analysis and Multimodal Learning for Clinical Decision Support: 4th International Workshop, DLMIA 2018, and 8t...

    2018

  35. [43]

    A deep multitask learning framework coupling semantic segmentation and fully convolutional lstm networks for urban change detection,

    M. Papadomanolaki, M. Vakalopoulou, and K. Karantzalos, “A deep multitask learning framework coupling semantic segmentation and fully convolutional lstm networks for urban change detection,” IEEE Transac- tions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 59, no. 9, pp. 7651–7668, 2021

    2021

  36. [44]

    Remote sensing image change detection with transformers,

    H. Chen, Z. Qi, and Z. Shi, “Remote sensing image change detection with transformers,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 60, pp. 1–14, 2021

    2021

  37. [45]

    Mining joint intraimage and interimage context for remote sensing change detection,

    F. Zhou, C. Xu, R. Hang, R. Zhang, and Q. Liu, “Mining joint intraimage and interimage context for remote sensing change detection,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 61, pp. 1–12, 2023

    2023

  38. [46]

    Remote sensing change detection with bitemporal and differential feature interactive perception,

    H. Chang, P. Wang, W. Diao, G. Xu, and X. Sun, “Remote sensing change detection with bitemporal and differential feature interactive perception,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , 2024

    2024

  39. [47]

    Unpaired image-to-image translation using cycle-consistent adversarial networks,

    J.-Y . Zhu, T. Park, P. Isola, and A. A. Efros, “Unpaired image-to-image translation using cycle-consistent adversarial networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , 2017, pp. 2223–2232

    2017

  40. [48]

    An unsupervised domain adaptation approach for change detection and its application to defor- estation mapping in tropical biomes,

    P. J. S. Vega, G. A. O. P. da Costa, R. Q. Feitosa, M. X. O. Adarme, C. A. de Almeida, C. Heipke, and F. Rottensteiner, “An unsupervised domain adaptation approach for change detection and its application to defor- estation mapping in tropical biomes,” ISPRS Journal of Photogr...

    2021

  41. [49]

    Unsuper- vised deep transfer learning-based change detection for hr multispectral images,

    S. Saha, Y . T. Solano-Correa, F. Bovolo, and L. Bruzzone, “Unsuper- vised deep transfer learning-based change detection for hr multispectral images,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters , vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 856–860, 2020

    2020

  42. [50]

    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

  43. [51]

    Dsdanet: Deep siamese do- main adaptation convolutional neural network for cross-domain change detection,

    H. Chen, C. Wu, B. Du, and L. Zhang, “Dsdanet: Deep siamese do- main adaptation convolutional neural network for cross-domain change detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.09225 , 2020

    2006 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Domain adaptation for convolutional neural networks-based remote sensing scene classification,

    S. Song, H. Yu, Z. Miao, Q. Zhang, Y . Lin, and S. Wang, “Domain adaptation for convolutional neural networks-based remote sensing scene classification,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters , vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 1324–1328, 2019

    2019

  45. [53]

    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 Observations and Remote Sensing , vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 4198–4209, 2017

    2017

  46. [54]

    Hiera: A hierarchi- cal vision transformer without the bells-and-whistles,

    C. Ryali, Y .-T. Hu, D. Bolya, C. Wei, H. Fan, P.-Y . Huang, V . Aggarwal, A. Chowdhury, O. Poursaeed, J. Hoffman et al. , “Hiera: A hierarchi- cal vision transformer without the bells-and-whistles,” in International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 2023, pp. 29 441–29 454

    2023

  47. [55]

    Masked au- toencoders are scalable vision learners,

    K. He, X. Chen, S. Xie, Y . Li, P. Doll ´ar, and R. Girshick, “Masked au- toencoders are scalable vision learners,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2022, pp. 16 000–16 009

    2022

  48. [56]

    Convnext v2: Co-designing and scaling convnets with masked autoen- coders,

    S. Woo, S. Debnath, R. Hu, X. Chen, Z. Liu, I. S. Kweon, and S. Xie, “Convnext v2: Co-designing and scaling convnets with masked autoen- coders,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 16 133–16 142

    2023

  49. [57]

    Fixmatch: Simplifying semi- supervised learning with consistency and confidence,

    K. Sohn, D. Berthelot, N. Carlini, Z. Zhang, H. Zhang, C. A. Raffel, E. D. Cubuk, A. Kurakin, and C.-L. Li, “Fixmatch: Simplifying semi- supervised learning with consistency and confidence,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 33, pp. 596–608, 2020

    2020

  50. [58]

    Revisiting weak- to-strong consistency in semi-supervised semantic segmentation,

    L. Yang, L. Qi, L. Feng, W. Zhang, and Y . Shi, “Revisiting weak- to-strong consistency in semi-supervised semantic segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 7236–7246

    2023

  51. [59]

    A spatial-temporal attention-based method and a new dataset for remote sensing image change detection,

    H. Chen and Z. Shi, “A spatial-temporal attention-based method and a new dataset for remote sensing image change detection,” Remote Sensing, vol. 12, no. 10, p. 1662, 2020

    2020

  52. [60]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization,

    I. Loshchilov, “Decoupled weight decay regularization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Sfda-cd: A source-free unsupervised domain adaptation for vhr image change detection,

    J. Wang and C. Wu, “Sfda-cd: A source-free unsupervised domain adaptation for vhr image change detection,” Remote Sensing , vol. 16, no. 7, p. 1274, 2024

    2024

  54. [62]

    Multi-task learning using uncer- tainty to weigh losses for scene geometry and semantics,

    A. Kendall, Y . Gal, and R. Cipolla, “Multi-task learning using uncer- tainty to weigh losses for scene geometry and semantics,” inProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2018, pp. 7482–7491

    2018

  55. [63]

    Revisiting consistency regularization for semi-supervised change detection in remote sensing images,

    W. G. C. Bandara and V . M. Patel, “Revisiting consistency regularization for semi-supervised change detection in remote sensing images,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.08454, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  56. [64]

    C2f-semicd: A coarse- to-fine semi-supervised change detection method based on consistency regularization in high-resolution remote sensing images,

    C. Han, C. Wu, M. Hu, J. Li, and H. Chen, “C2f-semicd: A coarse- to-fine semi-supervised change detection method based on consistency regularization in high-resolution remote sensing images,” IEEE Trans- actions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 62, pp. 1–21, 2024

    2024

  57. [65]

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

    A. Dosovitskiy, “An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 , 2020

    2010 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows,

    Z. Liu, Y . Lin, Y . Cao, H. Hu, Y . Wei, Z. Zhang, S. Lin, and B. Guo, “Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , 2021, pp. 10 012–10 022

    2021

  59. [67]

    Window attention is bugged: How not to interpolate position embeddings,

    D. Bolya, C. Ryali, J. Hoffman, and C. Feichtenhofer, “Window attention is bugged: How not to interpolate position embeddings,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.05613, 2023

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.