Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 75 references

Scale-adaptive UAV Geo-localization via Height-aware Partition Learning

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A drone's flight height can be converted into partition geometry that aligns drone and satellite views, lifting retrieval accuracy under scale mismatch.

desk verdict The height-aware partition idea is genuinely new and the ablations are thorough, but the central evidence is synthetic and generated by the same height-to-scale model the method assumes, and there is an unaddressed geometric inconsistency in the Short regime. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11535 v3 pith:6AJBCI7I submitted 2024-12-16 cs.CV

Quan Chen , Tingyu Wang , Rongfeng Lu , Yu Liu , Bolun Zheng , Zhedong Zheng This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords UAVgeo-localizationcross-viewimageretrievalscale-adaptivepartitionlearningheight-awareadjustmentsquarestrategysaliency-guidedrefinementUniversity-1652SUES-200
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes that the known altitude of a drone can be used to resize the part-level features extracted from its image, so that the resulting partitions match the content of the satellite image they are compared against. Existing partition-based geo-localization methods assume drone and satellite views have a consistent scale, which breaks when drones fly at different heights. The new method, SaLPN, computes a height-ratio-based scale factor and applies it to its square partition strategy, raising Recall@1 from 47.24% to 64.89% on a Short scale-shifted test set and from 35.57% to 64.08% on a Long scale-shifted test set against the LPN baseline. If valid, this turns easy-to-obtain flight metadata into a principled alignment signal for cross-view retrieval without adding learned scale parameters.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the height-aware adjustment strategy (HAAS): a closed-form scale factor θ = round((HD−HS)/HS·α) computed from drone altitude and a fixed satellite height, which rescales the side length of every square partition in the drone branch. It operates on top of a square partition strategy (SPS) that splits feature maps into N nested squares, and a saliency-guided refinement strategy (SGRS) that generates global, salient, and background features per partition via a heatmap thresholded by a Chebyshev-distance coordinate map. HAAS adds no learned parameters; it only changes the geometry of where features are pooled, which is what lets the same network stay accurate when the drone's height changes.

What would settle it

Take a set of real drone images with measured altitudes over the same locations as satellite images, run SaLPN with α tuned on synthetic scale-shifted versions of University-1652, and compare R@1 against always-equal partitions (α=0). If accuracy does not rise with |HD−HS|, or if the optimal α changes substantially per scene or camera, the linear height-to-scale model in Eq. 3 is not the mechanism producing the reported gains.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that scaling mismatches between drone and satellite views can be explicitly compensated by geometry rather than learned implicitly: when the drone flies higher than the satellite reference, shrinking the drone-side partitions removes redundant background; when it flies lower, enlarging them restores the field of view. The method computes θ = round((HD−HS)/HS·α), a single integer controlling how many pixels each square partition edge is shrunk or grown, and uses it to adjust all drone-side partition sizes while leaving satellite partitions fixed. Combined with a saliency-guided refinement that splits each partition into global, salient, and background descriptors, SaLPN reports state-of-the-art R@1 on University-1652 and SUES-200, with the largest gains exactly on the most scale-shifted test sets.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the assumption that the needed partition resize is a linear function of height difference, HD−HS, with one fixed constant α for the whole dataset, and that the satellite height HS is a known constant; if real flight data violates that proportionality, HAAS will misalign the partitions it is meant to align.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Scale-inconsistent test sets become tractable for hard-partition methods: SaLPN reports R@1 of 64.89% on Short(ΔP=-100) and 64.08% on Long(ΔP=+100), versus 47.24% and 35.57% for LPN on the ResNet-50 track.
  • Since HAAS is parameter-free, it can be dropped into existing square-partition or template-partition pipelines as a test-time height correction.
  • The method works with both ResNet-50 and ViT backbones, with the ViT version reporting an average R@1 of 79.69% across standard, Short, and Long test sets on University-1652.
  • On SUES-200, where each height is a separate training set, SaLPN improves R@1 over FSRA at 150m by 13.67 points, showing the gains are not confined to synthetic scale shifts.
  • The robustness gains grow with the degree of scale mismatch, suggesting HAAS is most valuable precisely when the drone's altitude deviates farthest from the satellite reference.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next test is whether the same height-to-scale law can be learned from camera intrinsics instead of a dataset-wide constant α, which would make the method transfer to drones with different sensors and image crops.
  • Because HAAS changes pooling geometry, it could be combined with soft-partition or transformer-based methods that currently lack explicit scale handling, potentially extending the robustness gains beyond hard partitions.
  • The synthetic height simulation assumes a linear relation between pixel shift ΔP and new height H′D; real-world validation on physically recorded altitudes would show whether the 0.7 empirical slope holds outside this benchmark.
  • A practical deployment would need only barometric or GPS altitude at capture time; if those are noisy, the round() operation may still tolerate small errors, but the acceptable error range is not examined in the paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper addresses cross-view UAV geo-localization under scale mismatch. The authors propose SaLPN, a hard-partition framework with three components: a square partition strategy (SPS), a height-aware adjustment strategy (HAAS) that rescales drone-side partition templates according to θ=round((HD−HS)/HS·α), and a saliency-guided refinement strategy (SGRS) that splits each partition into global, salient, and background descriptors. Experiments on University-1652 and SUES-200 report state-of-the-art results on standard benchmarks and large gains on synthetic scale-inconsistent test sets created by global resize/crop and assigned heights via Eq. (15). The central claim is that known drone height can be converted into partition geometry that aligns cross-view semantic content.

Significance. Strengths: the problem is practically relevant; HAAS is simple, interpretable, and adds no learnable parameters; Tables IV and VI cleanly isolate the contributions of SPS, HAAS, and SGRS; Table III provides an unusually thorough robustness sweep over ΔP∈[-150,+150] with two backbone architectures, and the method is compatible with both ResNet and ViT. Weaknesses: the evidence for HAAS rests on synthetic test sets whose height labels are generated by the same linear mapping that HAAS inverts, α is selected on those same test sets, and the stated partition geometry is undefined for negative θ as written. Real-altitude validation is explicitly deferred to future work. If the height-to-scale linear model holds on real data, this is a practical extension of LPN; the current manuscript does not yet establish that.

major comments (4)
  1. [§III-B, Eq. (5)] For θ<0, Eq. (5) defines the Nth drone partition side length as 128−2θ, which exceeds the 128×128 feature map for any negative θ. For example, on the Short (ΔP=-100) set, the synthesized height can be as low as H'_D = 123.5−70 = 53.5, giving θ = round((53.5−189.75)/189.75 × 14) = −10 and thus an outer partition side of 148 pixels. The bound in Eq. (7) only restricts the smallest partition (n=1) and does not prevent this geometric impossibility. Please specify the exact partition geometry (e.g., nested rings vs. non-overlapping blocks), correct Eq. (5), or document the clamping/truncation used in the Short experiments; as written, the Short-regime results in Tables III, IV, and VI cannot be reproduced from the stated formulas.
  2. [§IV-A, Eq. (15)] The extreme test sets are synthetic: drone images are globally resized/cropped and assigned new heights by the empirical formula H'_D = HD + λ_aug·ΔP with λ_aug=0.7 estimated from the same data. HAAS then consumes these H'_D values in Eq. (3) to compute θ. Consequently, the reported R@1 gains of HAAS in Tables III and IV show that a uniform integer resize can be partially undone if the height-to-scale mapping is precisely the line used to generate the labels. They do not establish that Eq. (3) predicts real scale changes from true flight altitude, since real scale also depends on camera intrinsics, satellite ground sampling distance, and perspective. The authors' own conclusion ('we plan to collect a real-world dataset containing drone pose information') confirms this gap. I recommend adding a real-height evaluation, even on the four recorded SUES-200 altitudes, or explicitly scoping the central claim to the synthetic protocol.
  3. [§IV-D, Table VI] The default α=14.0 is selected by running experiments on the very Short(ΔP≤0)/Long(ΔP≥0) test sets that later produce the headline comparison in Table III. The text states that H_max^D and H_min^D are taken from Long(ΔP=+150) and Short(ΔP=-150), and that α=14.0 is chosen after inspecting the average R@1 in Table VI. This is test-set-level hyperparameter selection. The improvements attributed to HAAS (e.g., +5.42 average R@1 over SaLPN without HAAS in Table III) may therefore be inflated by this tuning. Please report the α selection on a separate validation split or provide a sensitivity analysis showing stable gains across a range of α not chosen on the test sets.
  4. [§IV-C, Table II] For SUES-200, the paper states 'we only leverage HAAS in the testing phase' and sets α=4.0 experimentally. If HAAS is not used during training, the part-level classifiers and backbone are optimized on unadjusted partitions; applying adjusted partitions only at test time introduces a train/test distribution shift and makes it difficult to attribute the Table II gains over FSRA to HAAS. Please clarify the exact training protocol, including whether separate per-height models are trained, whether HAAS is in the training loop, and how α was selected without peeking at the test heights.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§IV-B] There is a typo: 'For SRGS' should be 'For SGRS'. Also, 'The training and testing of models are performed with data of the same height' is ambiguous; please state explicitly whether one model is trained per altitude or a single model sees all altitudes.
  2. [§IV-C] The phrase 'compared with partition-based LPN [20]' should cite LPN as reference [25], not [20]; FSRA is [20].
  3. [§IV-D, Table VII discussion] The text says 'Short (ΔP=-100) and Long (ΔP=-100)' when reporting N=1→3 gains; the second should be 'Long (ΔP=100)'.
  4. [Fig. 8] The caption for Figure 8 appears to have been merged into the body text ('Fig. 8. Variants of SGRS in ablation experiments...'). Please move the caption below the figure and restore the surrounding paragraph.
  5. [§III-B, Eq. (7)] The inequality '128/2N − θ ≤ 128/2' is hard to parse: it is unclear which partition side length is being bounded and why the bound is 128/2. Please add parentheses (e.g., 128/(2N) − θ) and explain the geometric reasoning for the bound.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The headline scale-adaptive gains are validated on synthetic test sets whose height labels are generated by the same linear height-to-scale model that HAAS inverts, and the α hyperparameter is selected on those same test sets.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III-B Eq. 3; Section IV-A Eq. 15; Section IV-D Table VI and α selection]
    "Then, we roughly estimate the corresponding new height of synthesized images with ∆P as: H′D = HD + λaug · ∆P, (15) where λaug=0.7 is the empirical value, estimated by the visual scale and height of the existing drone-view images. ... we set a series of α for experiments ... Considering the average performance of the model, we set α=14.0 as the default setting."

    Eq. 15 manufactures the test-set height H′D as a linear function of the synthetic scale change ΔP, and Eq. 3 converts H′D into the HAAS partition shift θ. Table VI is then used to pick α by selecting the value with the best R@1 on these same synthetic Short/Long sets. Consequently the reported HAAS gains in Table III show only that a partition shift chosen on those sets can partially undo a uniform resize under the paper's assumed linear height-scale model; the model is never tested against real scale variation. The evaluation is self-referential: the test variable (height) is defined by the same scale relation that the method inverts, and the free constant is tuned on the test metric, so the 'prediction' is statistically forced by construction.

full rationale

The method itself is not equation-level circular: Eq. 3 is a hand-specified mapping from input heights to a partition shift, not a quantity fitted to a ground-truth output of the same equation, and the SPS and SGRS components are evaluated against fixed-template baselines on the standard test set. The circularity is concentrated in the scale-robustness evidence. The Long/Short test sets are produced by synthetic resize and assigned heights by Eq. 15, which is a linear height-to-scale model of the same form that Eq. 3 inverts; Table VI then selects α by the R@1 on those exact sets. Hence the headline HAAS gain (e.g., +5.42% average R@1 in Table III) is statistically forced by the test construction and hyperparameter selection, rather than an independent confirmation that flight height predicts real scale mismatch. The conclusion explicitly defers real pose data to future work, confirming that no external scale/height benchmark is used. Self-citations such as SDPL [53] and LPN [25] appear only as baselines and do not carry the load-bearing argument. A separate geometric inconsistency exists for θ<0 (Eq. 5 gives the Nth partition side 128−2θ > 128, exceeding the feature map), but that is a correctness issue rather than circularity.

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

The method improves an existing partition-learning architecture, so it inherits standard deep-learning assumptions (pretrained backbone, cross-entropy training) without adding new physical entities. Its novel component, HAAS, rests on two domain assumptions (metadata availability and constant satellite height) and one ad hoc linear mapping with a hand-tuned constant. The evaluation adds another empirical constant, λ_aug, for synthetic test generation.

free parameters (4)
  • Partition adjustment factor α = 14.0 on University-1652, 4.0 on SUES-200
    Controls the degree of partition size change in Eq. 3. Chosen by sweeping values on the test sets in Table VI, so it is fitted to the evaluation data.
  • λ_aug = 0.7
    Empirical constant mapping image-scale augmentation ΔP to a synthetic drone height change in Eq. 15. Used to construct Long/Short test sets; not independently validated.
  • Heatmap threshold δ = 0.5
    Threshold for binarizing the saliency heatmap in Eq. 11. Chosen by hand; ablations do not explore it.
  • Number of partitions N = 4
    Model capacity hyper-parameter selected via ablation in Table VII.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Drone flight height HD is acquirable for every image at test time.
    Stated in Section III-B: 'we assume that the shooting height of drone-views is acquirable'. The entire HAAS module depends on this metadata being available and accurate.
  • domain assumption Satellite view has a constant height HS that can be estimated from area per unit pixel.
    Stated in Section III-B: 'the height of satellite-view images can be estimated by comparing the area per unit pixel with a fixed height drone-view image' and 'HS is constant'. This grounds the scale factor θ.
  • ad hoc to paper Visual scale changes linearly with relative height ratio, so θ = round((HD-HS)/HS · α) correctly represents partition misalignment.
    Eq. 3 asserts a linear mapping with a single hyper-parameter; this is not derived from camera geometry or learned, and the paper provides no real-scale ground truth to validate it.
  • domain assumption Perspective projection principle suffices to equate height differences with feature-map scale changes.
    Used throughout the motivation (Fig. 1 and Section I) to justify adjusting partition sizes by height ratio.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scale-adaptive UAV Geo-localization via Height-aware Partition Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6AJBCI7I

@misc{pith2026241211535,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scale-adaptive UAV Geo-localization via Height-aware Partition Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6AJBCI7I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11535}
}
read the original abstract

UAV Geo-Localization faces significant challenges due to the drastic appearance discrepancy between dronecaptured images and satellite views. Existing methods typically assume a consistent scaling factor across views and rely on predefined partition alignment to extract viewpoint-invariant representations through part-level feature construction. However, this scaling assumption often fails in real-world scenarios, where variations in drone flight states lead to scale mismatches between cross-view images, resulting in severe performance degradation. To address this issue, we propose a scale-adaptive partition learning framework that leverages known drone flight height to predict scale factors and dynamically adjust feature extraction. Our key contribution is a height-aware adjustment strategy, which calculates the relative height ratio between drone and satellite views, dynamically adjusting partition sizes to explicitly align semantic information between partition pairs. This strategy is integrated into a Scale-adaptive Local Partition Network (SaLPN), building upon an existing square partition strategy to extract both finegrained and global features. Additionally, we propose a saliencyguided refinement strategy to enhance part-level features, further improving retrieval accuracy. Extensive experiments validate that our height-aware, scale-adaptive approach achieves stateof-the-art geo-localization accuracy in various scale-inconsistent scenarios and exhibits strong robustness against scale variations. The code will be made publicly available.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11535 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The simplified diagram of our research motivation. Given drone [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The proposed height-aware adjustment strategy ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The comparison of our method with typical partition strategies, including (a) soft-partition strategy FSRA [20], (b) hard-partition strategy LPN [25] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of SaLPN framework, including three phase: feature extraction, scale-adaptive partition learning and classification supervision. In the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The data augmentation strategy to extend the shooting height range of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Image retrieval results obtained with SaLPN, LPN and ResNet. Specifically, we present the correspondingly numbered image retrieval outcomes from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Performance degradation of different methods on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Variants of SGRS in ablation experiments. Coordinate map ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of LPN, SPS and SaLPN with different numbers of parts. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Impact of different input sizes on R@1 and AP. The experiments were [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Placement and drone flight path mapping of agricultural soil sensors using ma- chine learning,

    P. Goodrich, O. Betancourt, A. C. Arias, and T. Zohdi, “Placement and drone flight path mapping of agricultural soil sensors using ma- chine learning,” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture , vol. 205, p. 107591, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Uav- based traffic analysis: A universal guiding framework based on literature survey,

    M. A. Khan, W. Ectors, T. Bellemans, D. Janssens, and G. Wets, “Uav- based traffic analysis: A universal guiding framework based on literature survey,” Transportation research procedia, vol. 22, pp. 541–550, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Ms-yolov7: Yolov7 based on multi-scale for object detection on uav aerial photography,

    L. Zhao and M. Zhu, “Ms-yolov7: Yolov7 based on multi-scale for object detection on uav aerial photography,” Drones, vol. 7, no. 3, p. 188, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Precise positioning of uavs–dealing with challenging rtk-gps measurement con- ditions during automated uav flights,

    F. Zimmermann, C. Eling, L. Klingbeil, and H. Kuhlmann, “Precise positioning of uavs–dealing with challenging rtk-gps measurement con- ditions during automated uav flights,” ISPRS Annals of the Photogram- metry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences , vol. 4, pp. 95–102, 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Cross-view image geolocalization,

    T.-Y . Lin, S. Belongie, and J. Hays, “Cross-view image geolocalization,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2013, pp. 891–898

    2013

  6. [6]

    Geo- localization of street views with aerial image databases,

    M. Bansal, H. S. Sawhney, H. Cheng, and K. Daniilidis, “Geo- localization of street views with aerial image databases,” in Proceedings of the 19th ACM international conference on Multimedia , 2011, pp. 1125–1128

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Semantic cross-view matching,

    F. Castaldo, A. Zamir, R. Angst, F. Palmieri, and S. Savarese, “Semantic cross-view matching,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Con- ference on Computer Vision Workshops , 2015, pp. 9–17

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    University-1652: A multi-view multi- source benchmark for drone-based geo-localization,

    Z. Zheng, Y . Wei, and Y . Yang, “University-1652: A multi-view multi- source benchmark for drone-based geo-localization,” in Proceedings of the 28th ACM international conference on Multimedia , 2020, pp. 1395– 1403

    2020

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    Mccg: A convnext- based multiple-classifier method for cross-view geo-localization,

    T. Shen, Y . Wei, L. Kang, S. Wan, and Y .-H. Yang, “Mccg: A convnext- based multiple-classifier method for cross-view geo-localization,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Joint representation learning and keypoint detection for cross-view geo-localization,

    J. Lin, Z. Zheng, Z. Zhong, Z. Luo, S. Li, Y . Yang, and N. Sebe, “Joint representation learning and keypoint detection for cross-view geo-localization,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , vol. 31, pp. 3780–3792, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Learning cross-view geo-localization embeddings via dynamic weighted decor- relation regularization,

    T. Wang, Z. Zheng, Z. Zhu, Y . Sun, C. Yan, and Y . Yang, “Learning cross-view geo-localization embeddings via dynamic weighted decor- relation regularization,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 62, pp. 1–12, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Rethinking pooling for multi-granularity features in aerial-view geo-localization,

    T. Wang, Z. Yang, Q. Chen, Y . Sun, and C. Yan, “Rethinking pooling for multi-granularity features in aerial-view geo-localization,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Exif as language: Learning cross-modal associations between images and camera metadata,

    C. Zheng, A. Shrivastava, and A. Owens, “Exif as language: Learning cross-modal associations between images and camera metadata,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 6945–6956

    2023

  6. [14]

    Iterated learning improves compositionality in large vision-language models,

    C. Zheng, J. Zhang, A. Kembhavi, and R. Krishna, “Iterated learning improves compositionality in large vision-language models,” in Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 13 785–13 795

    2024

  7. [15]

    Multi- weather cross-view geo-localization using denoising diffusion models,

    T. Feng, Q. Li, X. Wang, M. Wang, G. Li, and W. Zhu, “Multi- weather cross-view geo-localization using denoising diffusion models,” in Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on UAVs in Multimedia: Capturing the World from a New Perspective , 2024, p. 35–39

    2024

  8. [16]

    Multi-level embedding and alignment network with consistency and invariance learning for cross- view geo-localization,

    Z. Chen, Z.-X. Yang, and H.-J. Rong, “Multi-level embedding and alignment network with consistency and invariance learning for cross- view geo-localization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.14819 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Multiple- environment self-adaptive network for aerial-view geo-localization,

    T. Wang, Z. Zheng, Y . Sun, C. Yan, Y . Yang, and T.-S. Chua, “Multiple- environment self-adaptive network for aerial-view geo-localization,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 152, p. 110363, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Camp: A cross-view geo-localization method using contrastive attributes mining and position-aware partitioning,

    Q. Wu, Y . Wan, Z. Zheng, Y . Zhang, G. Wang, and Z. Zhao, “Camp: A cross-view geo-localization method using contrastive attributes mining and position-aware partitioning,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 62, pp. 1–14, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Enhancing cross-view geo-localization with domain alignment and scene consistency,

    P. Xia, Y . Wan, Z. Zheng, Y . Zhang, and J. Deng, “Enhancing cross-view geo-localization with domain alignment and scene consistency,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , vol. 34, no. 12, pp. 13 271–13 281, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    A transformer-based fea- ture segmentation and region alignment method for uav-view geo- localization,

    M. Dai, J. Hu, J. Zhuang, and E. Zheng, “A transformer-based fea- ture segmentation and region alignment method for uav-view geo- localization,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 4376–4389, 2021. JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, V...

    2021

  13. [21]

    Transfg: A cross-view geo-localization of satellite and uavs imagery pipeline using transformer- based feature aggregation and gradient guidance,

    H. Zhao, K. Ren, T. Yue, C. Zhang, and S. Yuan, “Transfg: A cross-view geo-localization of satellite and uavs imagery pipeline using transformer- based feature aggregation and gradient guidance,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Geoformer: An effective transformer-based siamese network for uav geo-localization,

    Q. Li, X. Yang, J. Fan, R. Lu, B. Tang, S. Wang, and S. Su, “Geoformer: An effective transformer-based siamese network for uav geo-localization,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing , 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    A transformer-based adaptive semantic aggregation method for uav visual geo-localization,

    S. Li, C. Liu, H. Qiu, and Z. Li, “A transformer-based adaptive semantic aggregation method for uav visual geo-localization,” in Chinese Confer- ence on Pattern Recognition and Computer Vision (PRCV) . Springer, 2023, pp. 465–477

    2023

  16. [24]

    Transgeo: Transformer is all you need for cross-view image geo-localization,

    S. Zhu, M. Shah, and C. Chen, “Transgeo: Transformer is all you need for cross-view image geo-localization,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2022, pp. 1162–1171

    2022

  17. [25]

    Each part matters: Local patterns facilitate cross-view geo-localization,

    T. Wang, Z. Zheng, C. Yan, J. Zhang, Y . Sun, B. Zheng, and Y . Yang, “Each part matters: Local patterns facilitate cross-view geo-localization,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 867–879, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Aerial-view geo-localization based on multi-layer local pattern cross- attention network,

    H. Li, T. Wang, Q. Chen, Q. Zhao, S. Jiang, C. Yan, and B. Zheng, “Aerial-view geo-localization based on multi-layer local pattern cross- attention network,” Applied Intelligence , vol. 54, no. 21, pp. 11 034– 11 053, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Multi-level feedback joint representation learning network based on adaptive area elimination for cross-view geo-localization,

    F. Ge, Y . Zhang, L. Wang, W. Liu, Y . Liu, S. Coleman, and D. Kerr, “Multi-level feedback joint representation learning network based on adaptive area elimination for cross-view geo-localization,” IEEE Trans- actions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Multibranch joint representation learning based on information fusion strategy for cross-view geo-localization,

    F. Ge, Y . Zhang, Y . Liu, G. Wang, S. Coleman, D. Kerr, and L. Wang, “Multibranch joint representation learning based on information fusion strategy for cross-view geo-localization,” IEEE Transactions on Geo- science and Remote Sensing , vol. 62, pp. 1–16, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Mmhca: Multi-feature repre- sentations based on multi-scale hierarchical contextual aggregation for uav-view geo-localization,

    C. Nanhua, T.-s. LOU, and Z. Liangyu, “Mmhca: Multi-feature repre- sentations based on multi-scale hierarchical contextual aggregation for uav-view geo-localization,” Chinese Journal of Aeronautics , 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    A self-adaptive feature extraction method for aerial-view geo-localization,

    J. Lin, Z. Luo, D. Lin, S. Li, and Z. Zhong, “A self-adaptive feature extraction method for aerial-view geo-localization,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    A faster and more effective cross-view matching method of uav and satellite images for uav geolocalization,

    J. Zhuang, M. Dai, X. Chen, and E. Zheng, “A faster and more effective cross-view matching method of uav and satellite images for uav geolocalization,” Remote Sensing, vol. 13, no. 19, p. 3979, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Style alignment-based dynamic observation method for uav-view geo-localization,

    J. Shao and L. Jiang, “Style alignment-based dynamic observation method for uav-view geo-localization,” IEEE Transactions on Geo- science and Remote Sensing , vol. 61, pp. 1–14, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Sues-200: A multi-height multi-scene cross-view image benchmark across drone and satellite,

    R. Zhu, L. Yin, M. Yang, F. Wu, Y . Yang, and W. Hu, “Sues-200: A multi-height multi-scene cross-view image benchmark across drone and satellite,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Wide-area image geolo- calization with aerial reference imagery,

    S. Workman, R. Souvenir, and N. Jacobs, “Wide-area image geolo- calization with aerial reference imagery,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision , 2015, pp. 3961–3969

    2015

  27. [35]

    Predicting ground- level scene layout from aerial imagery,

    M. Zhai, Z. Bessinger, S. Workman, and N. Jacobs, “Predicting ground- level scene layout from aerial imagery,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2017, pp. 867– 875

    2017

  28. [36]

    Lending orientation to neural networks for cross- view geo-localization,

    L. Liu and H. Li, “Lending orientation to neural networks for cross- view geo-localization,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2019, pp. 5624–5633

    2019

  29. [37]

    Sample4geo: Hard negative sam- pling for cross-view geo-localisation,

    F. Deuser, K. Habel, and N. Oswald, “Sample4geo: Hard negative sam- pling for cross-view geo-localisation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 16 847–16 856

    2023

  30. [38]

    Cross-view geo- localization via learning disentangled geometric layout correspondence,

    X. Zhang, X. Li, W. Sultani, Y . Zhou, and S. Wshah, “Cross-view geo- localization via learning disentangled geometric layout correspondence,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 37, no. 3, 2023, pp. 3480–3488

    2023

  31. [39]

    Vigor: Cross-view image geo-localization beyond one-to-one retrieval,

    S. Zhu, T. Yang, and C. Chen, “Vigor: Cross-view image geo-localization beyond one-to-one retrieval,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2021, pp. 3640–3649

    2021

  32. [40]

    Where we are and what we’re looking at: Query based worldwide image geo-localization using hierarchies and scenes,

    B. Clark, A. Kerrigan, P. P. Kulkarni, V . V . Cepeda, and M. Shah, “Where we are and what we’re looking at: Query based worldwide image geo-localization using hierarchies and scenes,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, ...

    2023

  33. [41]

    Unleashing unlabeled data: A paradigm for cross-view geo-localization,

    G. Li, M. Qian, and G.-S. Xia, “Unleashing unlabeled data: A paradigm for cross-view geo-localization,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 16 719– 16 729

    2024

  34. [42]

    Coming down to earth: Satellite-to-street view synthesis for geo-localization,

    A. Toker, Q. Zhou, M. Maximov, and L. Leal-Taix ´e, “Coming down to earth: Satellite-to-street view synthesis for geo-localization,” in Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2021, pp. 6488–6497

    2021

  35. [43]

    Geometry-guided street- view panorama synthesis from satellite imagery,

    Y . Shi, D. Campbell, X. Yu, and H. Li, “Geometry-guided street- view panorama synthesis from satellite imagery,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 44, no. 12, pp. 10 009– 10 022, 2022

    2022

  36. [44]

    Crossviewdiff: A cross-view diffusion model for satellite-to-street view synthesis,

    W. Li, J. He, J. Ye, H. Zhong, Z. Zheng, Z. Huang, D. Lin, and C. He, “Crossviewdiff: A cross-view diffusion model for satellite-to-street view synthesis,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.14765 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Vision- based uav self-positioning in low-altitude urban environments,

    M. Dai, E. Zheng, Z. Feng, L. Qi, J. Zhuang, and W. Yang, “Vision- based uav self-positioning in low-altitude urban environments,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , 2023

    2023

  38. [46]

    Game4loc: A uav geo-localization benchmark from game data,

    Y . Ji, B. He, Z. Tan, and L. Wu, “Game4loc: A uav geo-localization benchmark from game data,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.16925 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    A coarse-to-fine visual geo-localization method for gnss-denied uav with oblique-view imagery,

    Q. Ye, J. Luo, and Y . Lin, “A coarse-to-fine visual geo-localization method for gnss-denied uav with oblique-view imagery,” ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing , vol. 212, pp. 306–322, 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    Learning cross- view visual geo-localization without ground truth,

    H. Li, C. Xu, W. Yang, H. Yu, and G.-S. Xia, “Learning cross- view visual geo-localization without ground truth,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12702, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    A contrastive learning based multiview scene matching method for uav view geo-localization,

    Q. He, A. Xu, Y . Zhang, Z. Ye, W. Zhou, R. Xi, and Q. Lin, “A contrastive learning based multiview scene matching method for uav view geo-localization,” Remote Sensing, vol. 16, no. 16, p. 3039, 2024

    2024

  42. [50]

    F3-net: Multi-view scene matching for drone-based geo-localization,

    B. Sun, G. Liu, and Y . Yuan, “F3-net: Multi-view scene matching for drone-based geo-localization,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2023

    2023

  43. [51]

    Sequence matching for image-based uav-to-satellite geolocalization,

    Z. Wang, D. Shi, C. Qiu, S. Jin, T. Li, Y . Shi, Z. Liu, and Z. Qiao, “Sequence matching for image-based uav-to-satellite geolocalization,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , 2024

    2024

  44. [52]

    Segcn: A semantic-aware graph convolutional network for uav geo-localization,

    X. Liu, Z. Wang, Y . Wu, and Q. Miao, “Segcn: A semantic-aware graph convolutional network for uav geo-localization,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing , 2024

    2024

  45. [53]

    Sdpl: Shifting-dense partition learning for uav-view geo-localization,

    Q. Chen, T. Wang, Z. Yang, H. Li, R. Lu, Y . Sun, B. Zheng, and C. Yan, “Sdpl: Shifting-dense partition learning for uav-view geo-localization,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , pp. 1–1, 2024

    2024

  46. [54]

    Uav-satellite view syn- thesis for cross-view geo-localization,

    X. Tian, J. Shao, D. Ouyang, and H. T. Shen, “Uav-satellite view syn- thesis for cross-view geo-localization,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 4804–4815, 2021

    2021

  47. [55]

    Tirsa: A three stage approach for uav-satellite cross-view geo-localization based on self- supervised feature enhancement,

    J. Sun, H. Sun, L. Lei, K. Ji, and G. Kuang, “Tirsa: A three stage approach for uav-satellite cross-view geo-localization based on self- supervised feature enhancement,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 2024

    2024

  48. [56]

    Pedestrian-specific bipartite-aware similarity learning for text-based person retrieval,

    F. Shen, X. Shu, X. Du, and J. Tang, “Pedestrian-specific bipartite-aware similarity learning for text-based person retrieval,” in Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia , 2023, pp. 8922– 8931

    2023

  49. [57]

    Triplet contrastive representation learning for unsupervised vehicle re-identification,

    F. Shen, X. Du, L. Zhang, X. Shu, and J. Tang, “Triplet contrastive representation learning for unsupervised vehicle re-identification,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.09498, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Destruction and construction learning for fine-grained image recognition,

    Y . Chen, Y . Bai, W. Zhang, and T. Mei, “Destruction and construction learning for fine-grained image recognition,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2019, pp. 5157–5166

    2019

  51. [59]

    Ultra-high resolution segmentation via boundary-enhanced patch-merging transformer,

    H. Sun, Y . Zhang, L. Xu, S. Jin, and Y . Chen, “Ultra-high resolution segmentation via boundary-enhanced patch-merging transformer,” 2024

    2024

  52. [60]

    Spt: Sequence prompt transformer for interactive image segmentation,

    S. Cheng, H. Sun, T. Xie, H. Zhao, Y . Chen, B. Xu, and X. Li, “Spt: Sequence prompt transformer for interactive image segmentation,” IEEE, pp. 1–5, 2025

    2025

  53. [61]

    Fine-grained background representation for weakly supervised semantic segmenta- tion,

    X. Yin, W. Im, D. Min, Y . Huo, F. Pan, and S.-E. Yoon, “Fine-grained background representation for weakly supervised semantic segmenta- tion,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 2024

    2024

  54. [62]

    Multiresolution gray-scale and rotation invariant texture classification with local binary patterns,

    T. Ojala, M. Pietikainen, and T. Maenpaa, “Multiresolution gray-scale and rotation invariant texture classification with local binary patterns,” IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 971–987, 2002

    2002

  55. [63]

    Object recognition from local scale-invariant features,

    D. G. Lowe, “Object recognition from local scale-invariant features,” in Proceedings of the seventh IEEE international conference on computer vision, vol. 2. Ieee, 1999, pp. 1150–1157

    1999

  56. [64]

    Hierarchical part-based visual object cat- egorization,

    G. Bouchard and B. Triggs, “Hierarchical part-based visual object cat- egorization,” in 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR’05) , vol. 1. IEEE, 2005, pp. 710–715. JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2021 14

    2005

  57. [65]

    Attention-aware compositional network for person re-identification,

    J. Xu, R. Zhao, F. Zhu, H. Wang, and W. Ouyang, “Attention-aware compositional network for person re-identification,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2018, pp. 2119–2128

    2018

  58. [66]

    Invariance matters: Exemplar memory for domain adaptive person re-identification,

    Z. Zhong, L. Zheng, Z. Luo, S. Li, and Y . Yang, “Invariance matters: Exemplar memory for domain adaptive person re-identification,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2019, pp. 598–607

    2019

  59. [67]

    Gener- alizable person re-identification by domain-invariant mapping network,

    J. Song, Y . Yang, Y .-Z. Song, T. Xiang, and T. M. Hospedales, “Gener- alizable person re-identification by domain-invariant mapping network,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2019, pp. 719–728

    2019

  60. [68]

    Beyond part models: Person retrieval with refined part pooling (and a strong convolutional baseline),

    Y . Sun, L. Zheng, Y . Yang, Q. Tian, and S. Wang, “Beyond part models: Person retrieval with refined part pooling (and a strong convolutional baseline),” in Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), 2018, pp. 480–496

    2018

  61. [69]

    Learning deep context- aware features over body and latent parts for person re-identification,

    D. Li, X. Chen, Z. Zhang, and K. Huang, “Learning deep context- aware features over body and latent parts for person re-identification,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2017, pp. 384–393

    2017

  62. [70]

    Parameter-efficient person re-identification in the 3d space,

    Z. Zheng, X. Wang, N. Zheng, and Y . Yang, “Parameter-efficient person re-identification in the 3d space,”IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , 2022

    2022

  63. [71]

    Stepnet: Spatial-temporal part-aware network for isolated sign language recognition,

    X. Shen, Z. Zheng, and Y . Yang, “Stepnet: Spatial-temporal part-aware network for isolated sign language recognition,” ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications and Applications , vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 1–19, 2024

    2024

  64. [72]

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

    A. Dosovitskiy, L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, D. Weissenborn, X. Zhai, T. Unterthiner, M. Dehghani, M. Minderer, G. Heigold, S. Gelly et al., “An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,” in International Conference on Learning Representations , 2020

    2020

  65. [73]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2016, pp. 770–778

    2016

  66. [74]

    Content-aware hierarchical repre- sentation selection for cross-view geo-localization,

    Z. Lu, T. Pu, T. Chen, and L. Lin, “Content-aware hierarchical repre- sentation selection for cross-view geo-localization,” in Proceedings of the Asian Conference on Computer Vision , 2022, pp. 4211–4224

    2022

  67. [75]

    A practical cross-view image matching method between uav and satellite for uav-based geo- localization,

    L. Ding, J. Zhou, L. Meng, and Z. Long, “A practical cross-view image matching method between uav and satellite for uav-based geo- localization,” Remote Sensing, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 47, 2020

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.