Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Parking Space Detection in the City of Granada

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read DeepLabV3+ gives the strongest segmentation of parked cars, moving cars, and roads in aerial images of Granada, and parked cars can be found either by a dilation heuristic or by adding a fourth class.

desk verdict A modest but honest dataset-and-benchmark paper; the segmentation comparison is fine, but the headline parked-car claim is backed by one image and no numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.06651 v1 pith:TH2C7WP3 submitted 2025-01-11 cs.CV

Crespo-Orti Luis , Moreno-Cuadrado Isabel , Olivares-Martínez Pablo , Sanz-Tornero Ximo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords semanticsegmentationaerialimageryparkingspacedetectionDeepLabV3+PSPNetDynamicU-NetGranadadatasettransferlearning
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 claims that DeepLabV3+ is the most promising of three tested architectures for segmenting parked cars, moving cars, and roads in aerial images of Granada, Spain. It builds and uses a custom 90-image dataset, GranadaAerial, labeled by the authors, and shows that pretraining on two existing aerial datasets followed by fine-tuning on Granada produces favorable results. The paper also demonstrates two routes to parked-car detection: a post-processing contour-dilation heuristic applied to a car/road segmentation, and a model trained to output a dedicated parked-car class. If correct, this offers a low-cost path to parking-occupancy monitoring from aerial imagery in cities with little existing labeled data.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is DeepLabV3+'s encoder-decoder design with atrous spatial pyramid pooling (ASPP), which captures multi-scale context using dilated convolutions and is paired with a ResNet101 backbone. The empirical argument rides on a two-stage transfer schedule: pretraining all three models on UDD5 and UAVid, then fine-tuning the selected model on GranadaAerial. The parked-car distinction is carried by Algorithm 1, a contour-dilation heuristic whose 15x15 dilation kernel extends each detected car contour so that the pixel-type composition of its surroundings (background versus road) decides whether the car is parked.

What would settle it

Have an independent annotator re-label the 10 GranadaAerial test images, then re-run the final fine-tuning and evaluation on the re-labeled set; if DeepLabV3+ no longer leads on Dice or Jaccard, or if the two parked-car approaches change their relative quality, the paper's central claim is not stable. A field-level test on a new set of, say, 30 aerial images taken on different days and weather conditions would also settle whether the favorable parked-car results generalize.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

After pretraining Dynamic U-Net, PSPNet, and DeepLabV3+ on a fusion of the UDD5 and UAVid datasets, DeepLabV3+ with a ResNet101 backbone achieves the lowest validation loss (0.05404) and the highest foreground accuracy (0.7726), Dice coefficient (0.7955), and Jaccard index (0.6836) at the 50th epoch. The authors then fine-tune DeepLabV3+ on the custom GranadaAerial dataset, and report that both parked-car detection approaches yield favorable results: one applies Algorithm 1, a heuristic that dilates car contours with a 15x15 kernel and labels a car as parked when its dilated neighborhood contains more background pixels than road pixels; the other trains the network to output a fourth parked-car class directly.

Load-bearing premise

The whole comparison rests on the 90 hand-labeled GranadaAerial images being accurate and representative of Granada's parking scenes; if those labels are inconsistent or unrepresentative, the reported model ranking and parked-car results do not transfer to real use.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Parking occupancy in Granada could be monitored over time by running the trained model on periodically captured aerial images, without installing street-level sensors.
  • DeepLabV3+ becomes the natural baseline architecture for future aerial semantic-segmentation work on small custom urban datasets.
  • The contour-dilation heuristic offers a viable alternative to training a dedicated parked-car class when labeled examples of parked versus moving cars are scarce.
  • The UDD5 and UAVid pretraining transfers to a geographically different city after a short fine-tuning phase, suggesting the same recipe may work in other urban environments.
  • Adding a fourth parked-car class lets the network directly output parking locations, at the cost of slightly higher classification complexity than the three-class plus heuristic pipeline.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implicit testable extension is to replace the binary background-versus-road decision in Algorithm 1 with a richer neighborhood context (curbs, sidewalks, vegetation), since cars parked on wide road shoulders may be misclassified when road pixels dominate the dilated region.
  • Because the dataset is small, self-training on unlabeled Granada orthophotos using the fine-tuned model's high-confidence predictions as pseudo-labels could cheaply expand GranadaAerial and improve the parked-car class.
  • The paper compares the two parked-car approaches mainly on a single illustrative test image; reporting per-image error metrics over the full test set would let readers see exactly where the heuristic breaks and whether the four-class model is consistently better.
  • A further consequence, not pursued in the paper, is that the same three-class segmentation plus heuristic could be adapted to other Mediterranean cities with similar street geometry, while parking garages and underground lots would require new classes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper addresses parked-car detection in Granada from aerial imagery using semantic segmentation. The authors introduce a custom 90-image GranadaAerial dataset, train three models (Dynamic U-Net, PSPNet, DeepLabV3+) on UDD5 and UAVid, fine-tune the best model on Granada, and propose two parked-car detection approaches: a heuristic contour-dilation post-processing step applied to a car/road segmentation, and a direct four-class model that distinguishes parked from moving cars. The reported validation metrics in Table 1 indicate that DeepLabV3+ outperforms the other two models on validation loss, foreground accuracy, Dice, and Jaccard. The paper's stronger claim, that both parked-car detection approaches yield favorable results, is supported only by a single qualitative test image in Figure 4.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper would provide a useful comparison of standard segmentation architectures for parking-space detection in a new urban aerial dataset, and it would show that a simple contour-dilation heuristic can compete with a dedicated four-class model when labeled data are scarce. The authors deserve credit for making the code and the GranadaAerial dataset publicly available and for grounding the training pipeline in established public datasets, which improves reproducibility. However, the quantitative evidence is uneven: the segmentation-model comparison is supported by Table 1, but the main parked-car detection objective is never scored numerically, and the metric definitions in Section 5.4 contain inconsistencies. These gaps currently prevent the paper from substantiating its central claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.5, Figure 4; Section 6] The central claim that both parked-car detection approaches yield 'favorable results' rests on a single test image. No numerical evaluation over the 10 test images is reported for either the heuristic method or the four-class parked-car model: there are no per-class IoU, Dice, precision/recall, or error counts for the parked-car class, and no comparison between the two approaches. Algorithm 1's fixed 15x15 dilation kernel and the background-vs-road pixel threshold are validated only implicitly, with no sensitivity analysis. Because parked-car detection is the paper's stated primary objective, this is a load-bearing evidence gap; the authors should add quantitative test-set metrics, including per-class results for parked cars, and a sensitivity study for Algorithm 1's parameters.
  2. [Section 5.4, Metrics] The Foreground Accuracy formula ACC = (TP + TN) / (TP + TN + FP + FN) includes TN in both numerator and denominator, yet the prose states that 'background is not taken into account.' If background pixels are excluded, TN is either zero or undefined; if they are included, the metric is ordinary pixel accuracy rather than a foreground-focused metric. This contradiction makes Table 1 ambiguous. The Dice-to-Jaccard conversion JI = DSC / (2 - DSC) is also presented without clarifying whether the reported DSC and JI are macro-averaged over classes; the nonlinear conversion is only guaranteed to hold per class, not for macro averages. The authors should specify the exact computation (background excluded or not, macro vs micro averaging) and recompute or verify the reported values accordingly.
  3. [Section 5.1 and Table 1] Table 1 reports validation metrics, but no test-set metrics are reported for the three segmentation models or for the fine-tuned Granada models. Since the dataset contains only 90 images with 10 validation and 10 test images, and the split was performed manually, it is unclear whether DeepLabV3+'s advantage in Table 1 transfers to held-out Granada images. The authors should report test-set metrics for all models and describe the label-annotation process in more detail, including any quality checks or inter-annotator agreement for the author-created GranadaAerial labels.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 4 caption and Section 5.5 text] The color-coded error explanation is self-contradictory: the text first says green signifies false positives and red false negatives, but then states 'Green indicates areas present in the ground truth mask but not predicted, while red indicates areas predicted but not present,' which reverses the two definitions. This should be corrected to match the standard false-positive/false-negative convention.
  2. [Section 5.4, Dice formula] The Dice formula's variable listing says 'TP, FP and FP are the same as for foreground accuracy,' where the second 'FP' should be 'FN.' This appears to be a typo, but it adds confusion to an already ambiguous metric definition.
  3. [Throughout] The manuscript contains several typographical and grammatical errors, including 'reffer', 'aditional', 'approppiate', 'achive', 'hte', and 'UA Vid' instead of 'UAVid.' A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  4. [Section 5.3] The description of the one-cycle policy and learning-rate finder is somewhat repetitive across the two fine-tuning approaches; consolidating this text and stating the actual learning-rate values used would improve clarity and reproducibility.
  5. [Section 5.1] The GranadaAerial dataset is distributed via a Google Drive link in footnote 2; the authors should consider a persistent repository or versioned release to ensure long-term availability, and they should specify the annotation schema and class definitions more precisely.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the pipeline trains on external datasets and fine-tunes on a held-out Granada split; the central claims rest on empirical validation metrics and heuristic post-processing rather than definitional equivalences or self-citation chains.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (1) train Dynamic U-Net, PSPNet and DeepLabV3+ on UDD5+UAVid; (2) select the best model using validation loss, Foreground Accuracy, Dice and Jaccard in Table 1; (3) fine-tune the selected DeepLabV3+ on the custom GranadaAerial dataset; (4) detect parked cars either by applying the Algorithm 1 heuristic to a three-class car/road/background prediction or by training a separate four-class model; (5) present a qualitative comparison on one test image in Figure 4. No step defines its output in terms of its input. Model selection uses validation metrics, not test-set predictions, and the 10 test images are not described as informing the choice of architecture, kernel size, or threshold. Algorithm 1's 15x15 kernel and 'background pixels count greater than road pixels count' rule are heuristic constants, not parameters fitted to the metric that is later reported as the result; no equation in the paper shows the favorable-results claim reducing to the heuristic's own decision rule. There are no self-citations, imported uniqueness theorems, or ansatz-smuggling citations; the only self-references are to the authors' GitHub repository and their own Google Drive dataset, neither of which is load-bearing for the scientific derivation. The paper does contain evidentiary weaknesses that reduce confidence but are not circular: the parked-car claim rests on a single qualitative example with no per-class quantitative metrics over the 10 test images, and the Foreground Accuracy formula in Section 5.4 includes TN in the numerator and denominator while the text says background is not taken into account. These are correctness and evaluation-quality issues, not reductions of a claimed result to its own inputs.

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

The central results are empirical and rest primarily on the assumptions above. No theoretical derivation or invented entities are involved. The free parameters listed are hand-chosen hyperparameters and heuristic thresholds that affect the reported numbers but are not given uncertainty or sensitivity analysis.

free parameters (5)
  • Heuristic dilation kernel size = 15x15
    Hand-chosen in Algorithm 1 to connect disjoint car contour regions; no sensitivity analysis is reported, and this choice directly affects parked car classification.
  • Parked-car decision threshold = background pixel count > road pixel count
    Algorithm 1 line 11 uses a binary rule to separate parked from moving cars, with no calibration or evaluation across thresholds.
  • Batch size and epochs per training stage = 32/50, 16/12, 16/15
    Section 5.3 specifies batch sizes and epoch counts chosen based on GPU memory and the one-cycle policy; these affect the reported metrics but are not tuned on test data.
  • Learning rate from Fastai finder = not reported
    Section 5.3 states the learning rate finder was used to set the one-cycle policy, but the exact value is not given, limiting reproducibility.
  • Image resize dimensions = not reported, 3:2 aspect ratio
    Each model was assigned a distinct image size to maximize GPU VRAM (Section 5.3), but exact dimensions are not specified.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Labels in the GranadaAerial dataset are correct
    Section 5.1 states images were segmented by the authors using CVAT and Photoshop, with no reported inter-annotator agreement or label verification; all metrics depend on this.
  • domain assumption ImageNet-pretrained ResNet101 features transfer to aerial urban imagery
    Section 5.3 uses ResNet101 backbones pretrained on ImageNet and fine-tunes them on aerial data; transferability is assumed, not demonstrated on this dataset.
  • domain assumption Focal loss is appropriate for the class imbalance in aerial segmentation
    Section 5.3 selects focal loss over cross-entropy based on prior literature, but no ablation on this dataset is provided.
  • domain assumption The manual test split is representative of Granada parking scenes
    Section 5.1 uses a manual split to ensure diversity, but the split is not random and no coverage analysis is presented.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Parking Space Detection in the City of Granada." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TH2C7WP3

@misc{pith2026250106651,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Parking Space Detection in the City of Granada},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TH2C7WP3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.06651}
}
read the original abstract

This paper addresses the challenge of parking space detection in urban areas, focusing on the city of Granada. Utilizing aerial imagery, we develop and apply semantic segmentation techniques to accurately identify parked cars, moving cars and roads. A significant aspect of our research is the creation of a proprietary dataset specific to Granada, which is instrumental in training our neural network model. We employ Fully Convolutional Networks, Pyramid Networks and Dilated Convolutions, demonstrating their effectiveness in urban semantic segmentation. Our approach involves comparative analysis and optimization of various models, including Dynamic U-Net, PSPNet and DeepLabV3+, tailored for the segmentation of aerial images. The study includes a thorough experimentation phase, using datasets such as UDD5 and UAVid, alongside our custom Granada dataset. We evaluate our models using metrics like Foreground Accuracy, Dice Coefficient and Jaccard Index. Our results indicate that DeepLabV3+ offers the most promising performance. We conclude with future directions, emphasizing the need for a dedicated neural network for parked car detection and the potential for application in other urban environments. This work contributes to the fields of urban planning and traffic management, providing insights into efficient utilization of parking spaces through advanced image processing techniques.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.06651 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Training and validation loss comparison across epochs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of Dice Coefficients for Image Segmenta [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The figure displays the training and validation loss for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Analysis of Parked Car Detection Methodologies in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Performance evaluation of our model on images from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Progres- sive unsupervised deep transfer learning for forest mapping in satellite image

    Nouman Ahmed, Sudipan Saha, Muhammad Shahzad, Muhammad Moazam Fraz, and Xiao Xiang Zhu. Progres- sive unsupervised deep transfer learning for forest mapping in satellite image. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Inter- national Conference on Computer Vision , pages 752–761,

    work page

  2. [2]

    Segnet: A deep convolutional encoder-decoder architecture for image segmentation

    Vijay Badrinarayanan, Alex Kendall, and Roberto Cipolla. Segnet: A deep convolutional encoder-decoder architecture for image segmentation. IEEE transactions on pattern anal- ysis and machine intelligence, 39(12):2481–2495, 2017. 2

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Building ex- traction from remote sensing images with sparse token trans- formers

    Keyan Chen, Zhengxia Zou, and Zhenwei Shi. Building ex- traction from remote sensing images with sparse token trans- formers. Remote. Sens., 13:4441, 2021. 2

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Deeplab: Semantic image segmentation with deep convolutional nets, atrous convolu- tion, and fully connected crfs

    Liang-Chieh Chen, George Papandreou, Iasonas Kokkinos, Kevin Murphy, and Alan L Yuille. Deeplab: Semantic image segmentation with deep convolutional nets, atrous convolu- tion, and fully connected crfs. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 40(4):834–848, 2017. 2

    2017

  5. [5]

    Rethinking atrous convolution for seman- tic image segmentation

    Liang-Chieh Chen, George Papandreou, Florian Schroff, and Hartwig Adam. Rethinking atrous convolution for seman- tic image segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.05587 ,

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    Encoder-decoder with atrous separable convolution for semantic image segmentation

    Liang-Chieh Chen, Yukun Zhu, George Papandreou, Florian Schroff, and Hartwig Adam. Encoder-decoder with atrous separable convolution for semantic image segmentation. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), pages 801–818, 2018. 2

    2018

  7. [7]

    Large-scale structure from motion with semantic con- straints of aerial images

    Yu Chen, Yao Wang, Peng Lu, Yisong Chen, and Guoping Wang. Large-scale structure from motion with semantic con- straints of aerial images. In Chinese Conference on Pattern Recognition and Computer Vision (PRCV) , pages 347–359. Springer, 2018. 2

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    The cityscapes dataset for semantic urban scene understanding

    Marius Cordts, Mohamed Omran, Sebastian Ramos, Timo Rehfeld, Markus Enzweiler, Rodrigo Benenson, Uwe Franke, Stefan Roth, and Bernt Schiele. The cityscapes dataset for semantic urban scene understanding. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3213–3223, 2016. 2

    work page 2016

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    The cityscapes dataset for semantic urban scene understanding

    Marius Cordts, Mohamed Omran, Sebastian Ramos, Timo Rehfeld, Markus Enzweiler, Rodrigo Benenson, Uwe Franke, Stefan Roth, and Bernt Schiele. The cityscapes dataset for semantic urban scene understanding. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Re...

    2016

  2. [10]

    Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database

    Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 248–255. Ieee, 2009. 4

    2009

  3. [11]

    Fischler, Jay M

    Martin A. Fischler, Jay M. Tenenbaum, and Helen C. Wolf. Detection of roads and linear structures in low-resolution aerial imagery using a multisource knowledge integration technique. Computer Graphics and Image Processing , 15:201–223, 1981. 2

    1981

  4. [12]

    Using generic geometric models for intelligent shape extraction

    Pascal Fua. Using generic geometric models for intelligent shape extraction. In American Association for Artificial In- telligence, number CONF, 1987. 2

    1987

  5. [13]

    Data aug- mentation approaches for satellite image super-resolution

    MAA Ghaffar, A McKinstry, T Maul, and TT Vu. Data aug- mentation approaches for satellite image super-resolution. ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 4:47–54, 2019. 2

    2019

  6. [14]

    Bootstrap your own latent-a new approach to self-supervised learning

    Jean-Bastien Grill, Florian Strub, Florent Altch ´e, Corentin Tallec, Pierre Richemond, Elena Buchatskaya, Carl Doersch, Bernardo Avila Pires, Zhaohan Guo, Mohammad Ghesh- laghi Azar, et al. Bootstrap your own latent-a new approach to self-supervised learning. Advances in neur...

    2020

  7. [15]

    Mask r-cnn

    Kaiming He, Georgia Gkioxari, Piotr Doll ´ar, and Ross Gir- shick. Mask r-cnn. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 2961–2969, 2017. 2

    2017

  8. [16]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770–778, 2016. 2

    2016

  9. [17]

    Building extraction from remote sensing images via an uncertainty-aware network

    Wei He, Jiepan Li, Weinan Cao, Liangpei Zhang, and Hongyan Zhang. Building extraction from remote sensing images via an uncertainty-aware network. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.12309, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Jeremy Howard et al. fastai. https://github.com/ fastai/fastai, 2018. 4

    2018

  11. [19]

    Mapping urban green spaces at the metropolitan level us- ing very high resolution satellite imagery and deep learning techniques for semantic segmentation

    Roberto Huerta, Fabiola Y ´epez, Diego Lozano-Garc ´ıa, V´ıctor Hugo Cobi ´an, Adrian Ferri ˜no, Hector De Leon- Gomez, Ricardo Gonz ´alez, and Adriana Vargas-Mart ´ınez. Mapping urban green spaces at the metropolitan level us- ing very high resolution satellite imagery and de...

    2021

  12. [20]

    PNOA Image of Granada, Spain, 2022

    Instituto Geogr ´afico Nacional (IGN) Spain. PNOA Image of Granada, Spain, 2022. PNOA Image - IGN Spain. 3

    2022

  13. [21]

    Learning aerial image segmentation from online maps

    Pascal Kaiser, Jan Dirk Wegner, Aur ´elien Lucchi, Martin Jaggi, Thomas Hofmann, and Konrad Schindler. Learning aerial image segmentation from online maps. IEEE Trans- actions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , 55(11):6054– 6068, 2017. 2

    2017

  14. [22]

    Kingma and Jimmy Ba

    Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. CoRR, abs/1412.6980, 2014. 4

    2014 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Feature pyra- mid networks for object detection

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Piotr Doll ´ar, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, Bharath Hariharan, and Serge Belongie. Feature pyra- mid networks for object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recogni- tion, pages 2117–2125, 2017. 1

    2017

  16. [24]

    Focal loss for dense object detection

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Priya Goyal, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, and Piotr Doll ´ar. Focal loss for dense object detection. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 42(2):318–327, 2020. 4

    2020

  17. [25]

    Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation

    Jonathan Long, Evan Shelhamer, and Trevor Darrell. Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pat- tern recognition, pages 3431–3440, 2015. 1

    2015

  18. [26]

    Uavid: A semantic segmentation dataset for uav imagery

    Ye Lyu, George V osselman, Gui-Song Xia, Alper Yilmaz, and Michael Ying Yang. Uavid: A semantic segmentation dataset for uav imagery. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 165:108 – 119, 2020. 2

    2020

  19. [27]

    Semantic seg- mentation of aerial images with an ensemble of cnns

    Dimitrios Marmanis, Jan D Wegner, Silvano Galliani, Kon- rad Schindler, Mihai Datcu, and Uwe Stilla. Semantic seg- mentation of aerial images with an ensemble of cnns. ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 3:473–480, 2016. 2

    2016

  20. [28]

    Biomedical image segmentation using geometric deformable models and meta- heuristics

    Pablo Mesejo, Andrea Valsecchi, Linda Marrakchi-Kacem, Stefano Cagnoni, and Sergio Damas. Biomedical image segmentation using geometric deformable models and meta- heuristics. Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics , 43:167–178, 2015. 6

    2015

  21. [29]

    Unsupervised change detection in satellite images with generative adversarial network

    Caijun Ren, Xiangyu Wang, Jian Gao, Xiren Zhou, and Huanhuan Chen. Unsupervised change detection in satellite images with generative adversarial network. IEEE Trans- actions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , 59(12):10047– 10061, 2020. 2

    2020

  22. [30]

    U- net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmen- tation

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U- net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmen- tation. In Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th International Conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, Proceedings, Pa...

    2015

  23. [31]

    opencv/cvat: v1.1.0, Aug

    Boris Sekachev, Nikita Manovich, Maxim Zhiltsov, An- drey Zhavoronkov, Dmitry Kalinin, Ben Hoff, TOsmanov, Dmitry Kruchinin, Artyom Zankevich, DmitriySidnev, Mak- sim Markelov, Johannes222, Mathis Chenuet, a andre, te- lenachos, Aleksandr Melnikov, Jijoong Kim, Liron Ilouz, Ni...

    2020

  24. [32]

    A patch-based convolutional neural network for remote sensing image classification

    Atharva Sharma, Xiuwen Liu, Xiaojun Yang, and Di Shi. A patch-based convolutional neural network for remote sensing image classification. Neural Networks, 95:19–28, 2017. 2

    2017

  25. [33]

    Partial is better than all: Revisiting fine-tuning strategy for few-shot learning

    Zhiqiang Shen, Zechun Liu, Jie Qin, Marios Savvides, and Kwang-Ting Cheng. Partial is better than all: Revisiting fine-tuning strategy for few-shot learning. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 35(11):9594– 9602, May 2021. 4

    2021

  26. [34]

    Textonboost: Joint appearance, shape and context modeling for multi-class object recognition and segmenta- tion

    Jamie Shotton, John Winn, Carsten Rother, and Antonio Cri- minisi. Textonboost: Joint appearance, shape and context modeling for multi-class object recognition and segmenta- tion. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2006: 9th European Con- ference on Computer Vision, Graz, Austria, May 7-...

    2006

  27. [35]

    Very deep convo- lutional networks for large-scale image recognition

    Karen Simonyan and Andrew Zisserman. Very deep convo- lutional networks for large-scale image recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556, 2014. 2

    2014 arXiv

  28. [36]

    A disciplined approach to neural network hyper-parameters: Part 1–learning rate, batch size, momen- tum, and weight decay

    Leslie N Smith. A disciplined approach to neural network hyper-parameters: Part 1–learning rate, batch size, momen- tum, and weight decay. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.09820 ,

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    Smith and Nicholay Topin

    Leslie N. Smith and Nicholay Topin. Super-convergence: very fast training of neural networks using large learning rates. In Defense + Commercial Sensing, 2018. 4

    2018

  30. [38]

    Semantic segmentation in aerial imagery using multi-level contrastive learning with local consistency

    Maofeng Tang, Konstantinos Georgiou, Hairong Qi, Cody Champion, and Marc Bosch. Semantic segmentation in aerial imagery using multi-level contrastive learning with local consistency. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Win- ter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision , pages ...

    2023

  31. [39]

    Features, color spaces, and boosting: New insights on semantic classification of remote sensing im- ages

    Piotr Tokarczyk, Jan Dirk Wegner, Stefan Walk, and Kon- rad Schindler. Features, color spaces, and boosting: New insights on semantic classification of remote sensing im- ages. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sens- ing, 53(1):280–295, 2014. 2

    2014

  32. [40]

    Detecting parametric objects in large scenes by monte carlo sampling

    Yannick Verdie and Florent Lafarge. Detecting parametric objects in large scenes by monte carlo sampling. Interna- tional Journal of Computer Vision, 106:57 – 75, 2013. 2

    2013

  33. [41]

    Automatic skin lesion segmentation using deep fully convolutional networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.06466, 2018

    Hongming Xu and Tae Hyun Hwang. Automatic skin lesion segmentation using deep fully convolutional networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.06466, 2018. 4

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Multi-scale context aggregation by dilated convolutions

    Fisher Yu and Vladlen Koltun. Multi-scale context aggregation by dilated convolutions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.07122, 2015. 1

    2015 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Road extraction by deep residual u-net

    Zhengxin Zhang, Qingjie Liu, and Yunhong Wang. Road extraction by deep residual u-net. IEEE Geoscience and Re- mote Sensing Letters, 15(5):749–753, 2018. 2

    2018

  36. [44]

    Pyramid scene parsing network

    Hengshuang Zhao, Jianping Shi, Xiaojuan Qi, Xiaogang Wang, and Jiaya Jia. Pyramid scene parsing network. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2881–2890, 2017. 2

    2017

  37. [45]

    Unet++: A nested u-net ar- chitecture for medical image segmentation

    Zongwei Zhou, Md Mahfuzur Rahman Siddiquee, Nima Tajbakhsh, and Jianming Liang. Unet++: A nested u-net ar- chitecture for medical image segmentation. In Deep Learn- ing in Medical Image Analysis and Multimodal Learning for Clinical Decision Support: 4th International Workshop,...

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.