Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 66 references

DeltaVLM: Interactive Remote Sensing Image Change Analysis via Instruction-guided Difference Perception

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read DeltaVLM claims that instruction-guided, multi-turn dialogue about changes between two satellite images is achievable, and backs this claim with a new 105,107-pair dataset and state-of-the-art results across six change-analysis tasks.

desk verdict Useful dataset and credible architecture, but the open-ended QA evaluation is circular, so the multi-turn SOTA claim is not yet supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22346 v1 pith:Q32LB3EJ submitted 2025-07-30 cs.CV

Pei Deng , Wenqian Zhou , Hanlin Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords remotesensingimagechangeanalysiscaptioningbi-temporaldetectionvisualquestionansweringvision-languagemodelsinstructionfollowingChat-105kmulti-turndialogue
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 tries to establish remote sensing image change analysis (RSICA) as a task: rather than emitting a change mask or a fixed caption, a model should let a user ask a question about what changed between two satellite images of the same place, get an answer, and then ask a follow-up. To make that possible, the authors construct ChangeChat-105k, a dataset of 105,107 instruction-response pairs derived from the LEVIR-CC and LEVIR-MCI benchmarks, spanning change captioning, binary change classification, category-specific counting, localization in a 3x3 grid, open-ended QA, and multi-turn dialogue. On top of this dataset they propose DeltaVLM, which computes the pixel-level difference between bi-temporal visual features, filters that difference through a cross-semantic relation measuring (CSRM) module, and aligns the surviving change features with the user's instruction through a Q-former before a frozen large language model decodes the answer. The paper reports state-of-the-art numbers on ChangeChat-105k across all six tasks, with ablations showing that the CSRM filter is essential and that fine-tuning the last two blocks of the vision encoder adds a further gain. If these results hold, satellite change analysis becomes an interactive conversation rather than a one-shot prediction.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the instruction-guided difference perception module (IDPM), a two-stage filter. Its first stage, cross-semantic relation measuring (CSRM), computes the raw difference $F_{\mathrm{diff}} = F_{t_2} - F_{t_1}$ and then, for each temporal feature $F_{t_1}$ and $F_{t_2}$, builds a context vector $C = \tanh(W_c[F_{\mathrm{diff}}; F_t]+b_c)$ and a gate vector $G = \sigma(W_g[F_{\mathrm{diff}}; F_t]+b_g)$, refining the features as $F'_t = G \odot C$ so that semantically relevant changes survive and nuisance differences are suppressed. The second stage is a Q-former with 32 learnable queries, in the style of InstructBLIP, that attend to the concatenation of the filtered features and the instruction prompt and compress the result into the language model's input space. The paper's argument is that this pipeline is what lets a frozen 7-billion-parameter language model produce instruction-specific, multi-turn answers about changes.

What would settle it

Take a random subsample of ChangeChat-105k change pairs, have human annotators answer the open-ended questions by looking only at the two images, and compare DeltaVLM's outputs against those human answers; if agreement is at chance while BLEU and CIDEr against the GPT references are high, the open-ended claim fails. A cheaper check is to paraphrase each GPT-generated answer while preserving the counts and spatial facts, then re-score: a large drop would mean the model is matching surface phrasing rather than the underlying change content.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that instruction-guided difference perception is what makes multi-turn change analysis work. DeltaVLM feeds the two images through a shared bi-temporal vision encoder to get features $F_{t_1}$ and $F_{t_2}$, forms the raw difference $F_{\mathrm{diff}} = F_{t_2} - F_{t_1}$, and then uses CSRM to compute, for each temporal state, a context vector and a gate vector from the concatenation of difference and original features; the gate multiplies the context to suppress irrelevant variation such as lighting or sensor noise. An instruction-guided Q-former then runs learnable queries through self-attention and cross-attention over the filtered features and the user's prompt, producing 32 tokens that a frozen Vicuna-7B decoder turns into a response. The paper demonstrates the claim on the ChangeChat-105k test split, reporting 85.78 BLEU-1 on captioning, 93.83 F1 on binary change classification, road-count MAE of 0.24, localization F1 of 67.94 for roads and 78.99 for buildings, and CIDEr of 127.38 on open-ended QA; ablations attribute the margin to the CSRM module and to selective fine-tuning of the vision encoder.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that ChatGPT-generated answers, written from text captions, counts, and contours without ever seeing the images, are valid ground truth for the open-ended and dialogue tasks; if those references encode GPT priors rather than actual image content, the reported BLEU and CIDEr gains for those tasks measure style imitation rather than perceptual accuracy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Interactive change analysis of bi-temporal satellite imagery can be delivered by a frozen large language model; only the vision encoder and alignment modules need task-specific training, which lowers the adaptation cost for new remote sensing domains.
  • The CSRM ablation, which collapses to predicting "no change" without the filter, indicates that explicit semantic filtering of the temporal difference is necessary for any model that must answer change questions, not an optional refinement.
  • The performance gap between DeltaVLM and general-purpose vision-language models on ChangeChat-105k implies that domain-specific instruction tuning on bi-temporal remote sensing data is the main driver of improvement; scale and general vision pretraining alone are not enough.
  • ChangeChat-105k gives future work a common testbed with six task types, so progress in interactive change analysis can be measured against a fixed distribution rather than bespoke task splits.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the open-ended QA and dialogue answers were generated by ChatGPT from text captions, counts, and contours rather than from the images, the dataset probably rewards stylistic imitation of ChatGPT's phrasing as much as perceptual accuracy; a human perceptual-accuracy study on a subsample would separate the two.
  • The 3x3 grid localization protocol cannot distinguish a model that knows the change is in the top-left cell from one that only knows the broad region; refining to continuous or pixel-level localization would likely shrink the reported margin over general vision-language models.
  • The difference-then-filter recipe is generic: the same CSRM-plus-Q-former structure could be applied to video question answering or longitudinal medical imaging, where nuisance variation between observations must be gated before answering the user's query.
  • Since the language model is frozen, swapping Vicuna-7B for a stronger instruction-tuned language model at inference time would probably improve open-ended QA and multi-turn coherence without retraining the visual side; that is a cheap experiment the paper does not run.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces remote sensing image change analysis (RSICA), a multi-turn instruction-following paradigm for bi-temporal remote sensing images, and presents ChangeChat-105k, a dataset with 105,107 instruction-response pairs covering captioning, binary change classification, category-specific quantification, localization, open-ended QA, and multi-turn dialogue. The authors also propose DeltaVLM, an end-to-end VLM with a bi-temporal vision encoder, a cross-semantic relation measuring (CSRM) module, and an instruction-guided Q-former, with a frozen Vicuna-7B decoder. Experiments on ChangeChat-105k report strong results on structured tasks relative to general VLMs, and the abstract claims state-of-the-art performance on both single-turn captioning and multi-turn interactive change analysis. The central architectural ideas are plausible, but the evaluation of open-ended QA and multi-turn dialogue has significant validity gaps that affect the main claim.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper would contribute a useful benchmark and a reasonable architecture for interactive change analysis in remote sensing. The structured-task evaluations (captioning, classification, quantification, localization) use independently annotated LEVIR-CC and LEVIR-MCI data, and the model's design choices—selective Bi-VE fine-tuning, CSRM filtering, and instruction-guided Q-former—are clearly presented. The release of code, dataset, and weights is a practical strength. However, the open-ended QA evaluation is circular because references are generated by ChatGPT from text-only captions/counts/contours, and the multi-turn dialogue claim rests on qualitative examples only. These issues currently limit the significance of the SOTA claim to the structured, rule-based portions of the benchmark.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III.5 and Table VI] The open-ended QA evaluation is circular. The test references for Table VI are produced by the same ChatGPT-based pipeline described in §III.5, in which ChatGPT receives only five captions, change counts, and contours, with no visual input, and the model is trained on the same type of GPT-generated references. BLEU and CIDEr on this 7,527-pair test set therefore measure how closely DeltaVLM reproduces ChatGPT's textual style and priors rather than whether it perceptually grounds changes in the images. Because this is the largest non-rule-based component of the evaluation, the claimed advantage over GPT-4o and GLM-4V-Plus is not evidence of visual understanding. Please add image-grounded human-annotated references, or at minimum a human evaluation of answer correctness, and do not use these numbers as the primary evidence for the SOTA claim.
  2. [§V.D and Abstract] The abstract claims state-of-the-art performance on 'multi-turn interactive change analysis,' but the only multi-turn evidence is the qualitative demo in Fig. 5. No quantitative metric, consistency measure, or comparison with the closest prior systems ChangeChat [56] and Change-Agent [57] is reported. Please add a quantitative multi-turn evaluation protocol, for example per-turn accuracy/consistency or human-rated dialogue quality, and compare with those systems. Without this, the multi-turn half of the central claim is unsupported by the evidence currently in the paper.
  3. [§V.B and Tables II–VI] The baseline comparisons are not fully specified. The paper does not state the prompts or adaptation scheme used for GPT-4o, Qwen-VL-Plus, GLM-4V-Plus, and Gemini-1.5-Pro, nor how the RS change captioning models RSICCFormer, PromptCC, PSNet, and SFT were obtained for the ChangeChat-105k test set, for example original checkpoints versus retraining on the same training split. The paper also reports no error bars or repeated trials. These details are necessary to interpret the magnitude of the reported gains, especially on open-ended QA and localization, which are sensitive to output formatting and prompt wording. Please document the baselines' prompts/adaptation and report variance across at least a few runs.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§V.C] The ablation discussion refers to 'Table II' when it should refer to Table VII, and the sentence 'After freezing the parameters of the Bi-VE, the model exhibits improvements in all metrics' is ambiguous because the w/o Bi-VE FT row improves over w/o CSRM but not over the full DeltaVLM model.
  2. [Fig. 5] In the third example of Fig. 5, the response 'Bottom-left.' appears under a yes/no question, but it seems to answer the following localization question; the alignment in the figure should be corrected.
  3. [§V.B.3] The phrase 'averaging 35%'s improvement across all metrics' is ungrammatical and not directly derivable from Table IV without a definition of how the average improvement is computed.
  4. [§IV.A and §V.D] There are minor typographical errors: 'conditioned on the instuction P' in the text around Eq. (3) should be 'instruction', and 'potential for for practical use' in §V.D contains a duplicated word.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial self-referentiality in open-ended QA: test references are ChatGPT paraphrases of the same text-only captions/counts/contours used for training, so Table VI partly measures style imitation for that task; captioning and structured-task results remain independently grounded.

  1. self definitional [Section III.5 (Open-ended QA), Fig. 3; Table I; Section V.B.5, Table VI]
    "Notably, we did not provide any visual information to ChatGPT. All questions and answers were derived from prompts we constructed based on five captions, as well as the change contours and counting information extracted from the change map, as illustrated in Fig. 3 (b)."

    The open-ended QA target is, by construction, ChatGPT's rewording of the text-only captions/counts/contours, with no image input. The same GPT-assisted pipeline produced both training pairs and the 7,527 test pairs (Table I). DeltaVLM is trained on that distribution and then scored against it in Table VI, so high BLEU/CIDEr chiefly reflect how well the model reproduces ChatGPT's paraphrase style for these text inputs, not whether it visually perceives changes. The Section V.B.5 claim of 'semantic understanding beyond change captioning' is therefore self-referential for this task: the reference answers are generated blind to images from the same source material on both sides of the split.

full rationale

Most of the paper's evaluation is not circular. Change captioning uses LEVIR-CC human captions; classification, quantification, and localization use LEVIR-MCI change maps and OpenCV-derived counts/contours as external ground truth, and the SOTA numbers in Tables II–V are comparisons against independently trained baselines. The one load-bearing self-referential element is the open-ended QA benchmark: ChatGPT generated both the training and test questions/answers from the same five captions, counts, and contours, without seeing images (Section III.5), so Table VI's BLEU/CIDEr gains partly measure imitation of ChatGPT's text-rewriting distribution. This is partial rather than total because the underlying captions are human-written from the images, so some visual information is indirectly present, and because open-ended QA is one of six tasks. The multi-turn dialogue half of the SOTA claim is supported only by qualitative examples (Fig. 5), and there is an internal inconsistency (Fig. 2 labels Type 6 as ChatGPT-generated while Table I labels it rule-based), but these are evidence gaps rather than circularity. Reference [56] is a self-citation, but it is used as a prior comparison point, not as the justification for DeltaVLM's derivation; the dataset builds on external LEVIR-CC/LEVIR-MCI. No uniqueness-theorem or ansatz-via-citation pattern appears.

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

The central claims rest on the quality of the generated dataset and on standard pretrained components. No physically new entities are introduced, but the hand-chosen thresholds, query count, fine-tuning budget, and GPT-derived reference answers are parameters the experiments do not vary.

free parameters (5)
  • Localization positive-cell threshold = >5% changed pixels
    Hand-chosen threshold in Section III.4 defines which of the nine 3x3 grid cells count as changed; changing it changes labels and all localization metrics.
  • Q-former query count L = 32
    Number of learnable queries in the instruction-guided Q-former (Section IV.C.2) is fixed without an ablation.
  • Fine-tuned ViT layer count = last two blocks (first 37 frozen)
    Selective fine-tuning choice for the bi-temporal vision encoder (Section IV.B) is not swept in experiments.
  • Training hyperparameters = lr 1e-5, batch 24, 30 epochs
    Learning rate, batch size, and epoch count in Section V.A.2 are hand-chosen; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • OpenCV contour detection parameters = not specified
    Category-specific counting labels (Section III.3) rely on OpenCV contour detection, but thresholds and morphology settings are not given, making labels hard to reproduce exactly.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper ChatGPT-generated QA pairs, prompted only with captions, counts, and contours, are valid instruction-following ground truth.
    Open-ended QA and parts of multi-turn data are produced without visual input (Section III.5, Fig. 3); no human verification is reported.
  • domain assumption OpenCV contour detection on LEVIR-MCI change maps yields accurate object counts and contours.
    Counting and fine-grained QA labels depend on contour extraction (Section III.3); segmentation errors would corrupt labels.
  • domain assumption LEVIR-CC captions and LEVIR-MCI change maps are accurate and aligned.
    The dataset derives all tasks from these source benchmarks (Section III); source annotation errors propagate into ChangeChat-105k.
  • standard math Standard transformer, Q-former, and autoregressive language-model operations are correct as implemented.
    The architecture relies on standard attention and cross-entropy training (Section IV), with no formal verification.
  • ad hoc to paper Frozen Vicuna-7B preserves sufficient reasoning and language ability when only vision and alignment modules are trained.
    The design freezes the LLM (Section IV.D) and adapts only the vision and alignment modules; no analysis verifies that this is sufficient.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DeltaVLM: Interactive Remote Sensing Image Change Analysis via Instruction-guided Difference Perception." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q32LB3EJ

@misc{pith2026250722346,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DeltaVLM: Interactive Remote Sensing Image Change Analysis via Instruction-guided Difference Perception},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q32LB3EJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22346}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate interpretation of land-cover changes in multi-temporal satellite imagery is critical for real-world scenarios. However, existing methods typically provide only one-shot change masks or static captions, limiting their ability to support interactive, query-driven analysis. In this work, we introduce remote sensing image change analysis (RSICA) as a new paradigm that combines the strengths of change detection and visual question answering to enable multi-turn, instruction-guided exploration of changes in bi-temporal remote sensing images. To support this task, we construct ChangeChat-105k, a large-scale instruction-following dataset, generated through a hybrid rule-based and GPT-assisted process, covering six interaction types: change captioning, classification, quantification, localization, open-ended question answering, and multi-turn dialogues. Building on this dataset, we propose DeltaVLM, an end-to-end architecture tailored for interactive RSICA. DeltaVLM features three innovations: (1) a fine-tuned bi-temporal vision encoder to capture temporal differences; (2) a visual difference perception module with a cross-semantic relation measuring (CSRM) mechanism to interpret changes; and (3) an instruction-guided Q-former to effectively extract query-relevant difference information from visual changes, aligning them with textual instructions. We train DeltaVLM on ChangeChat-105k using a frozen large language model, adapting only the vision and alignment modules to optimize efficiency. Extensive experiments and ablation studies demonstrate that DeltaVLM achieves state-of-the-art performance on both single-turn captioning and multi-turn interactive change analysis, outperforming existing multimodal large language models and remote sensing vision-language models. Code, dataset and pre-trained weights are available at https://github.com/hanlinwu/DeltaVLM.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22346 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The performance of DeltaVLM against state-of-the-art VLMs on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Instruction types and examples in the ChangeChat-105k Dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of the GPT-based data generation for open-ended QA. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An overview of our proposed DeltaVLM. we constructed based on five captions, as well as the change contours and counting information extracted from the change map, as illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Demonstration of multi-round dialogue capability of DeltaVLM. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [56]

    Changechat: An interactive model for remote sensing change analysis via multimodal instruction tuning,

    P. Deng, W. Zhou, and H. Wu, “Changechat: An interactive model for remote sensing change analysis via multimodal instruction tuning,” in ICASSP 2025-2025 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 2025, pp. 1–5

    work page 2025

  2. [57]

    Change-agent: Towards interactive comprehensive remote sensing change interpretation and analysis,

    C. Liu, K. Chen, H. Zhang, Z. Qi, Z. Zou, and Z. Shi, “Change-agent: Towards interactive comprehensive remote sensing change interpretation and analysis,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. , 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [1]

    Remote sensing for natural disaster management,

    C. Van Westen, “Remote sensing for natural disaster management,” Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci., vol. 33, no. B7/4; PART 7, pp. 1609–1617, 2000

    work page 2000

  4. [2]

    Driving forces of tropical deforestation: The role of remote sensing and spatial models,

    R. R. Chowdhury, “Driving forces of tropical deforestation: The role of remote sensing and spatial models,” Singap. J. Trop. Geogr. , vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 82–101, 2006

    work page 2006

  5. [3]

    Remote sensing applica- tions: An overview,

    R. R. Navalgund, V . Jayaraman, and P. Roy, “Remote sensing applica- tions: An overview,” Curr. Sci., pp. 1747–1766, 2007

    work page 2007

  6. [4]

    A theoretical review of different mathematical models of geometric corrections applied to remote sensing images,

    A. Bannari, D. Morin, G. B ´eni´e, and F. Bonn, “A theoretical review of different mathematical models of geometric corrections applied to remote sensing images,” Remote sensing reviews , vol. 13, no. 1-2, pp. 27–47, 1995

    work page 1995

  7. [5]

    A survey of sample-efficient deep learning for change detection in remote sensing: Tasks, strategies, and challenges,

    L. Ding, D. Hong, M. Zhao, H. Chen, C. Li, J. Deng, N. Yokoya, L. Bruzzone, and J. Chanussot, “A survey of sample-efficient deep learning for change detection in remote sensing: Tasks, strategies, and challenges,” IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Mag. , pp. 2–27, 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [6]

    Deep semantic understanding of high resolution remote sensing image,

    B. Qu, X. Li, D. Tao, and X. Lu, “Deep semantic understanding of high resolution remote sensing image,” in 2016 Int. Conf. Comput. Inf. Telecommun. Syst. (CITS). IEEE, 2016, pp. 1–5

    work page 2016

Show all 66 references
  1. [7]

    RSVQA: Visual question answering for remote sensing data,

    S. Lobry, D. Marcos, J. Murray, and D. Tuia, “RSVQA: Visual question answering for remote sensing data,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. , vol. 58, no. 12, pp. 8555–8566, 2020

    2020

  2. [8]

    Remote sensing image change captioning with dual-branch transformers: A new method and a large scale dataset,

    C. Liu, R. Zhao, H. Chen, Z. Zou, and Z. Shi, “Remote sensing image change captioning with dual-branch transformers: A new method and a large scale dataset,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. , vol. 60, pp. 1–20, 2022

    2022

  3. [9]

    Language models are unsupervised multitask learners,

    A. Radford, J. Wu, R. Child, D. Luan, D. Amodei, I. Sutskever et al., “Language models are unsupervised multitask learners,” OpenAI blog , vol. 1, no. 8, p. 9, 2019

    2019

  4. [10]

    ViLBERT: Pretraining task- agnostic visiolinguistic representations for vision-and-language tasks,

    J. Lu, D. Batra, D. Parikh, and S. Lee, “ViLBERT: Pretraining task- agnostic visiolinguistic representations for vision-and-language tasks,” in Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. , 2019

    2019

  5. [11]

    Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners,

    J. Wei, M. Bosma, V . Y . Zhao, K. Guu, A. W. Yu, B. Lester, N. Du, A. M. Dai, and Q. V . Le, “Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.01652 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  6. [12]

    RSGPT: A remote sensing vision language model and benchmark,

    Y . Hu, J. Yuan, C. Wen, X. Lu, Y . Liu, and X. Li, “RSGPT: A remote sensing vision language model and benchmark,” ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens., vol. 224, pp. 272–286, 2025

    2025

  7. [13]

    Geochat: Grounded large vision-language model for remote sensing,

    K. Kuckreja, M. S. Danish, M. Naseer, A. Das, S. Khan, and F. S. Khan, “Geochat: Grounded large vision-language model for remote sensing,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. , 2024, pp. 27 831– 27 840

    2024

  8. [14]

    RS- llava: A large vision-language model for joint captioning and question answering in remote sensing imagery,

    Y . Bazi, L. Bashmal, M. M. Al Rahhal, R. Ricci, and F. Melgani, “RS- llava: A large vision-language model for joint captioning and question answering in remote sensing imagery,” Remote Sens., vol. 16, no. 9, p. 1477, 2024

    2024

  9. [15]

    Visual instruction tuning,

    H. Liu, C. Li, Q. Wu, and Y . J. Lee, “Visual instruction tuning,” Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. , vol. 36, pp. 34 892–34 916, 2023

    2023

  10. [16]

    Noise reduction in hyperspectral imagery: Overview and application,

    B. Rasti, P. Scheunders, P. Ghamisi, G. Licciardi, and J. Chanussot, “Noise reduction in hyperspectral imagery: Overview and application,” Remote Sens., vol. 10, no. 3, p. 482, 2018

    2018

  11. [17]

    ChatGPT: Optimizing language models for dialogue,

    OpenAI, “ChatGPT: Optimizing language models for dialogue,” 2022, accessed: 2025-05-19. [Online]. Available: https://openai.com/blog/ chatgpt

    2022

  12. [18]

    Review article digital change detection techniques using remotely-sensed data,

    A. Singh, “Review article digital change detection techniques using remotely-sensed data,” Int. J. Remote Sens. , vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 989– 1003, 1989

    1989

  13. [19]

    Detecting forest canopy change due to insect activity using landsat mss,

    R. F. Nelson, “Detecting forest canopy change due to insect activity using landsat mss,” Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. , vol. 49, no. 9, pp. 1303–1314, 1983

    1983

  14. [20]

    Multivariate alteration detection (mad) and maf postprocessing in multispectral, bitemporal image data: New approaches to change detection studies,

    A. A. Nielsen, K. Conradsen, and J. J. Simpson, “Multivariate alteration detection (mad) and maf postprocessing in multispectral, bitemporal image data: New approaches to change detection studies,” Remote Sens. Environ., vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 1–19, 1998

    1998

  15. [21]

    Post-classification change detection with data from different sensors: some accuracy considerations,

    P. Serra, X. Pons, and D. Sauri, “Post-classification change detection with data from different sensors: some accuracy considerations,” Int. J. Remote Sens., vol. 24, no. 16, pp. 3311–3340, 2003

    2003

  16. [22]

    Object based image analysis for remote sensing,

    T. Blaschke, “Object based image analysis for remote sensing,” ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. , vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 2–16, 2010

    2010

  17. [23]

    Fully convolutional siamese networks for change detection,

    R. C. Daudt, B. Le Saux, and A. Boulch, “Fully convolutional siamese networks for change detection,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Image Process. IEEE, 2018, pp. 4063–4067

    2018

  18. [24]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, “U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,” in Int. Conf. Med. Image Comput. Comput.-Assist. Interv. (MICCAI) . Springer, 2015, pp. 234–241

    2015

  19. [25]

    Remote sensing image change detection with transformers,

    H. Chen, Z. Qi, and Z. Shi, “Remote sensing image change detection with transformers,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 60, pp. 1–14, 2021

    2021

  20. [26]

    A transformer-based siamese 12 network for change detection,

    W. G. C. Bandara and V . M. Patel, “A transformer-based siamese 12 network for change detection,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Geosci. Remote Sens. Symp. IEEE, 2022, pp. 207–210

    2022

  21. [27]

    A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations,

    T. Chen, S. Kornblith, M. Norouzi, and G. Hinton, “A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Mach. Learn. PmLR, 2020, pp. 1597–1607

    2020

  22. [28]

    Beit: Bert pre-training of image transformers,

    H. Bao, L. Dong, S. Piao, and F. Wei, “Beit: Bert pre-training of image transformers,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.08254 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  23. [29]

    Zero- shot learning with semantic output codes,

    M. Palatucci, D. Pomerleau, G. E. Hinton, and T. M. Mitchell, “Zero- shot learning with semantic output codes,” Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., vol. 22, 2009

    2009

  24. [30]

    Multi-modal change detection, application to the detection of flooded areas: Outcome of the 2009–2010 data fusion contest,

    N. Longbotham, F. Pacifici, T. Glenn, A. Zare, M. V olpi, D. Tuia, E. Christophe, J. Michel, J. Inglada, J. Chanussot et al. , “Multi-modal change detection, application to the detection of flooded areas: Outcome of the 2009–2010 data fusion contest,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. E...

    2009

  25. [31]

    Change captioning: A new paradigm for multitemporal remote sensing image analysis,

    G. Hoxha, S. Chouaf, F. Melgani, and Y . Smara, “Change captioning: A new paradigm for multitemporal remote sensing image analysis,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. , vol. 60, pp. 1–14, 2022

    2022

  26. [32]

    Image captioning with semantic attention,

    Q. You, H. Jin, Z. Wang, C. Fang, and J. Luo, “Image captioning with semantic attention,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit., 2016, pp. 4651–4659

    2016

  27. [33]

    A lightweight sparse focus transformer for remote sensing image change captioning,

    D. Sun, Y . Bao, J. Liu, and X. Cao, “A lightweight sparse focus transformer for remote sensing image change captioning,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. , 2024

    2024

  28. [34]

    Progressive scale-aware network for remote sensing image change captioning,

    C. Liu, J. Yang, Z. Qi, Z. Zou, and Z. Shi, “Progressive scale-aware network for remote sensing image change captioning,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Geosci. Remote Sens. Symp. IEEE, 2023, pp. 6668–6671

    2023

  29. [35]

    A decoupling paradigm with prompt learning for remote sensing image change cap- tioning,

    C. Liu, R. Zhao, J. Chen, Z. Qi, Z. Zou, and Z. Shi, “A decoupling paradigm with prompt learning for remote sensing image change cap- tioning,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , 2023

    2023

  30. [36]

    Semantic- cc: Boosting remote sensing image change captioning via foundational knowledge and semantic guidance,

    Y . Zhu, L. Li, K. Chen, C. Liu, F. Zhou, and Z. X. Shi, “Semantic- cc: Boosting remote sensing image change captioning via foundational knowledge and semantic guidance,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. , vol. 62, pp. 1–16, 2024

    2024

  31. [37]

    Language models are few-shot learners,

    T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. D. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askellet al., “Language models are few-shot learners,” Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., vol. 33, pp. 1877–1901, 2020

    1901

  32. [38]

    Cdchat: A large multimodal model for remote sensing change description,

    M. Noman, N. Ahsan, M. Naseer, H. Cholakkal, R. M. Anwer, S. Khan, and F. S. Khan, “Cdchat: A large multimodal model for remote sensing change description,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.16261 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  33. [39]

    A deeply supervised attention metric-based network and an open aerial image dataset for remote sensing change detection,

    Q. Shi, M. Liu, S. Li, X. Liu, F. Wang, and L. Zhang, “A deeply supervised attention metric-based network and an open aerial image dataset for remote sensing change detection,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 60, pp. 1–16, 2021

    2021

  34. [40]

    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 Sens., vol. 12, no. 10, p. 1662, 2020

    2020

  35. [41]

    Vqa: Visual question answering,

    S. Antol, A. Agrawal, J. Lu, M. Mitchell, D. Batra, C. L. Zitnick, and D. Parikh, “Vqa: Visual question answering,” inProc. Int. Conf. Comput. Vis., 2015, pp. 2425–2433

    2015

  36. [42]

    A spatial hierarchical reasoning network for remote sensing visual question answering,

    Z. Zhang, L. Jiao, L. Li, X. Liu, P. Chen, F. Liu, Y . Li, and Z. Guo, “A spatial hierarchical reasoning network for remote sensing visual question answering,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 61, pp. 1–15, 2023

    2023

  37. [43]

    Earthvqa: Towards queryable earth via relational reasoning-based remote sensing visual question answering,

    J. Wang, Z. Zheng, Z. Chen, A. Ma, and Y . Zhong, “Earthvqa: Towards queryable earth via relational reasoning-based remote sensing visual question answering,” in Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell. , vol. 38, no. 6, 2024, pp. 5481–5489

    2024

  38. [44]

    Prompt- rsvqa: Prompting visual context to a language model for remote sensing visual question answering,

    C. Chappuis, V . Zermatten, S. Lobry, B. Le Saux, and D. Tuia, “Prompt- rsvqa: Prompting visual context to a language model for remote sensing visual question answering,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit., 2022, pp. 1372–1381

    2022

  39. [45]

    Remote sensing temporal vision-language models: A comprehensive survey,

    C. Liu, J. Zhang, K. Chen, M. Wang, Z. Zou, and Z. Shi, “Remote sensing temporal vision-language models: A comprehensive survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.02573 , 2024

    2024

  40. [46]

    Change-aware visual question answering,

    Z. Yuan, L. Mou, and X. X. Zhu, “Change-aware visual question answering,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Geosci. Remote Sens. Symp. IEEE, 2022, pp. 227–230

    2022

  41. [47]

    Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for unified vision-language understanding and generation,

    J. Li, D. Li, C. Xiong, and S. Hoi, “Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for unified vision-language understanding and generation,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Mach. Learn. PMLR, 2022, pp. 12 888–12 900

    2022

  42. [48]

    Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning,

    J.-B. Alayrac, J. Donahue, P. Luc, A. Miech, I. Barr, Y . Hasson, K. Lenc, A. Mensch, K. Millican, M. Reynolds et al. , “Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning,” Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., vol. 35, pp. 23 716–23 736, 2022

    2022

  43. [49]

    Gpt-4o system card,

    A. Hurst, A. Lerer, A. P. Goucher, A. Perelman, A. Ramesh, A. Clark, A. Ostrow, A. Welihinda, A. Hayes, A. Radford et al., “Gpt-4o system card,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  44. [50]

    Qwen2-vl: Enhancing vision-language model’s perception of the world at any resolution,

    P. Wang, S. Bai, S. Tan, S. Wang, Z. Fan, J. Bai, K. Chen, X. Liu, J. Wang, W. Ge et al., “Qwen2-vl: Enhancing vision-language model’s perception of the world at any resolution,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12191, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  45. [51]

    Chatglm: A family of large language models from glm-130b to glm-4 all tools,

    T. GLM, A. Zeng, B. Xu, B. Wang, C. Zhang, D. Yin, D. Zhang, D. Rojas, G. Feng, H. Zhao et al. , “Chatglm: A family of large language models from glm-130b to glm-4 all tools,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.12793, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  46. [52]

    Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context,

    G. Team, P. Georgiev, V . I. Lei, R. Burnell, L. Bai, A. Gulati, G. Tanzer, D. Vincent, Z. Pan, S. Wang et al., “Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05530, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  47. [53]

    RS5M and GeoRSCLIP: A large scale vision-language dataset and a large vision-language model for remote sensing,

    Z. Zhang, T. Zhao, Y . Guo, and J. Yin, “RS5M and GeoRSCLIP: A large scale vision-language dataset and a large vision-language model for remote sensing,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. , 2024

    2024

  48. [54]

    Instructblip: Towards general-purpose vision-language models with instruction tuning,

    W. Dai, J. Li, D. Li, A. Tiong, J. Zhao, W. Wang, B. Li, P. N. Fung, and S. Hoi, “Instructblip: Towards general-purpose vision-language models with instruction tuning,” Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. , vol. 36, pp. 49 250–49 267, 2023

    2023

  49. [55]

    Skyeyegpt: Unifying remote sensing vision-language tasks via instruction tuning with large language model,

    Y . Zhan, Z. Xiong, and Y . Yuan, “Skyeyegpt: Unifying remote sensing vision-language tasks via instruction tuning with large language model,” ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. , vol. 221, pp. 64–77, 2025

    2025

  50. [58]

    EV A: Exploring the limits of masked visual representation learning at scale,

    Y . Fang, W. Wang, B. Xie et al., “EV A: Exploring the limits of masked visual representation learning at scale,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit., 2023, pp. 19 358–19 369

    2023

  51. [59]

    Learning phrase representa- tions using rnn encoder–decoder for statistical machine translation,

    K. Cho, B. van Merrienboer, C ¸ aglar G ¨ulc ¸ehre, D. Bahdanau, F. Bougares, H. Schwenk, and Y . Bengio, “Learning phrase representa- tions using rnn encoder–decoder for statistical machine translation,” in Conf. Empir. Methods Nat. Lang. Process. , 2014

    2014

  52. [60]

    Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena,

    L. Zheng, W.-L. Chiang, Y . Sheng, S. Zhuang, Z. Wu, Y . Zhuang, Z. Lin, Z. Li, D. Li, E. Xing et al., “Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena,” Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., vol. 36, pp. 46 595– 46 623, 2023

    2023

  53. [61]

    Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models,

    H. Touvron, T. Lavril, G. Izacard, X. Martinet, M.-A. Lachaux, T. Lacroix, B. Rozi `ere, N. Goyal, E. Hambro, F. Azhar et al. , “Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization,

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

    2017 arXiv

  55. [63]

    BLEU: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation,

    K. Papineni, S. Roukos, T. Ward, and W.-J. Zhu, “BLEU: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation,” in Proc. 40th Annu. Meet. Assoc. Comput. Linguist. , 2002, pp. 311–318

    2002

  56. [64]

    METEOR: An automatic metric for mt evaluation with improved correlation with human judgments,

    S. Banerjee and A. Lavie, “METEOR: An automatic metric for mt evaluation with improved correlation with human judgments,” in Proc. ACL Workshop Intrinsic Extrinsic Eval. Mach. Transl. Summ., 2005, pp. 65–72

    2005

  57. [65]

    Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries,

    C.-Y . Lin, “Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries,” in Proc. Workshop Text Summ. Branches Out , 2004, pp. 74–81

    2004

  58. [66]

    CIDEr: Consensus-based image description evaluation,

    R. Vedantam, C. L. Zitnick, and D. Parikh, “CIDEr: Consensus-based image description evaluation,” Proc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit., pp. 4566–4575, 2014

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.