Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

UniRS: Unifying Multi-temporal Remote Sensing Tasks through Vision Language Models

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 The paper claims that a single 3B vision-language model, UniRS, unifies multi-temporal remote sensing tasks across single images, dual-time image pairs, and videos, and reports state-of-the-art results on all three task families.

desk verdict A solid multi-task remote sensing VLM whose prompt-augmentation trick is the least validated part, and it happens to be load-bearing for one headline result. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.20742 v1 pith:BCKZKFLT submitted 2024-12-30 cs.CV

Yujie Li , Wenjia Xu , Guangzuo Li , Zijian Yu , Zhiwei Wei , Jiuniu Wang , Mugen Peng This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords vision-languagemodelremotesensingmulti-temporalvisualquestionansweringchangecaptioningvideosceneclassificationinstructiontuningpromptaugmentation
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 sets out to show that one compact vision-language model can cover the three temporal modes of remote sensing analysis—single still images, before/after image pairs, and video—rather than requiring a separate expert system for each. UniRS builds on a 3B general-purpose VLM, adds a change-extraction module for dual-time pairs, augments task prompts with zero-shot clues produced by the frozen base model, and is jointly fine-tuned on a mixed dataset spanning all three input types. On standard benchmarks it reports the best published scores in all three task families: 92.21% average accuracy on RSVQA-LR, CIDEr-D 139.12 on LEVIR-CC change captioning, and 87.8% overall accuracy on ERA video classification. If these results hold, a single model can replace several task-specific remote sensing pipelines and benefit from cross-task knowledge sharing at the same time.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the UniRS architecture built on the VILA-1.5 (3B) foundation: a SigLIP visual encoder projects images or frames into visual features, a multimodal projector maps them into language-embedding space, and a Sheared-LLaMA (3B) decoder generates answers. Two components carry the temporal argument: the Change Extraction module, which concatenates dual-time features, adds cosine-distance embeddings for spatial association, and fuses them with a residual three-layer convolutional network; and the prompt augmentation mechanism, which uses the frozen base VLM to produce zero-shot descriptive clues that are templated into the task instruction before decoding. Joint instruction tuning on GeoChat-Instruct, LEVIR-CC, and ERA ties the three input types together by fine-tuning only the language module.

What would settle it

Re-run the RSVQA-HR and CRSVQA evaluations with the prompt-augmentation clues replaced by generic or randomized descriptions of unrelated scenes; if accuracy stays at the reported 73.15% and 86.67%, the factual content of the clues is not what drives the gains. A complementary check is to annotate the zero-shot clues for correctness and compare per-sample accuracy for correct-clue versus hallucinated-clue cases.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a single 3B vision-language model can unify multi-temporal remote sensing tasks that were previously handled by separate expert models, and can beat those experts on their own benchmarks. UniRS accepts single images, dual-time image pairs, and videos through one task-based unified visual token representation; for image pairs a dedicated Change Extraction module enhances spatiotemporal features; a prompt augmentation mechanism harvests zero-shot clues from the frozen general-purpose base model; and joint instruction fine-tuning on a mixed dataset encourages knowledge sharing across the three input types. The paper reports state-of-the-art results on visual question answering (RSVQA-LR, RSVQA-HR, CRSVQA), change captioning (LEVIR-CC), and video scene classification (ERA), including a gain of 2.51 CIDEr-D over the previous best change-captioning expert and a 19.7 percentage-point gain in video classification overall accuracy.

Load-bearing premise

The prompt augmentation mechanism assumes that the frozen general-purpose base model produces reliable zero-shot clues for remote sensing imagery; the paper itself shows the base model can hallucinate, describing a swimming pool that is not there, and no filtering or quality control is applied before the clues are injected into the prompt.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the results hold, a single 3B model can replace separate expert systems for remote sensing visual question answering, change captioning, and video scene classification, with fewer parameters than 7B remote sensing VLMs.
  • Joint training across temporal input types improves each task relative to training separately, raising ERA video classification overall accuracy from 84.4% to 87.8% and LEVIR-CC CIDEr-D from 137.61 to 139.12.
  • The Change Extraction module is the main driver of change-captioning gains: adding it lifts CIDEr-D from 126.41 to 137.61 under individual training.
  • Prompt augmentation contributes most on high-resolution inputs, lifting RSVQA-HR average accuracy from 72.21% to 73.15% and CRSVQA overall accuracy from 84.00% to 86.67%.
  • Zero-shot remote sensing VQA on high-resolution imagery can reach a new state of the art without supervised training on that specific benchmark.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the paper leaves implicit that the same unified representation could absorb multi-date image sequences beyond pairs, since video is already handled as a frame sequence.
  • Editorial inference: a testable extension is to filter or score the zero-shot clues before injection; on low-resolution inputs the paper reports smaller gains, consistent with the base model's clues being less reliable there.
  • Editorial inference: if the reported generalization holds across sensors and geographies, multi-temporal remote sensing analysis could shift from a zoo of task-specific models toward single instruction-tuned assistants for applications such as disaster monitoring and land-use change tracking.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. UniRS is a 3B vision-language model built on VILA-1.5 (SigLIP encoder, MLP projector, Sheared-LLaMA 3B decoder) that unifies three multi-temporal remote sensing input types—single image, dual-time image pair, and video—within one instruction-tuned framework. The paper contributes a change extraction module for dual-time inputs, a prompt augmentation mechanism that injects zero-shot clues from a frozen VILA-1.5 into the instruction, and a joint fine-tuning protocol over GeoChat-Instruct, LEVIR-CC, and ERA. Experiments report state-of-the-art results on RSVQA-LR, RSVQA-HR, CRSVQA, LEVIR-CC change captioning, and ERA video classification, with ablations (Tables VIII–X) attributing gains to joint training, the change module, and prompt augmentation.

Significance. The empirical claim is significant if it holds: a single 3B VLM covering three visual input types and outperforming task-specific experts would be a useful step toward general remote sensing assistants. The change extraction module shows a clear and large effect (Table IX: CIDEr-D 126.41→137.61 individually; 131.28→139.12 in joint training), and the joint-training ablation (Table VIII) supports knowledge transfer. I agree with the reader's circularity assessment: the prompt clues come from a frozen base model and no test label is used in prompt construction, so the evaluation is not circular. The unresolved issues are the unmeasured reliability of the prompt-augmentation clues, the ambiguous CRSVQA protocol, and the absence of statistical support for several small margins. These issues do not invalidate the central architecture, but they currently prevent full confidence in the quantitative SOTA claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-B2, Eqs. (10)–(11); Table X; Fig. 4b] The prompt augmentation mechanism concatenates zero-shot clues from the frozen VILA-1.5 into the instruction at training and inference (Eqs. 10–11), but the paper does not measure the accuracy or hallucination rate of these clues, apply any filtering, or test sensitivity to erroneous clues. This is load-bearing: Table X shows that removing PA drops RSVQA-HR average accuracy from 73.15 to 72.21, below GeoChat's 72.53 in Table IV, so the claimed zero-shot SOTA on RSVQA-HR rests on an unquantified teacher signal. The concern is concrete because Fig. 4b shows VILA-1.5 hallucinating a swimming pool. Please add clue-quality evaluation (e.g., human-rated or reference-based accuracy per dataset), ablations with corrupted or absent clues at test time, and a discussion of how train/test distribution changes if clues are present in both.
  2. [Section IV-B; Table V] The description of the CRSVQA test split is internally inconsistent: the text says the test set consists of 1,000 data points, then says the authors follow MQVQA by adopting 10% of the data as the test set. Ten percent of the 4,644 QA pairs is roughly 464, not 1,000. In addition, the 'supervised setting' is not defined: the instruction-tuning mixture in Section III-C contains only GeoChat-Instruct, LEVIR-CC, and ERA, so please state explicitly whether the CRSVQA training split is used for further training and report the corresponding hyperparameters. This clarification is necessary to interpret the 86.67% OA in Table V and its comparison with EarthGPT and GeoChat.
  3. [Tables IV, VI, X] Several state-of-the-art margins are small (RSVQA-HR: 73.15 vs. 72.53; LEVIR-CC CIDEr-D: 139.12 vs. 136.61; PA ablation: 73.15 vs. 72.21), and the paper reports no standard deviations or significance tests for any experiment. The text repeatedly uses 'significantly' (e.g., Sections IV-B and IV-E3), but without repeated runs or statistical testing these claims are not supported. Please report means and standard deviations over at least three seeds for the main comparisons and ablations, or otherwise justify the stability of the reported differences.
  4. [Abstract; Section II-B] The abstract and contributions claim UniRS is 'the first vision-language model unifying multi-temporal remote sensing tasks across various types of visual input,' but the related work already discusses TEOChat (temporal image sequences) and SkyEyeGPT (video captioning). Please state precisely which combination of input types and tasks was not previously supported, or soften the novelty claim to avoid an unsupported 'first' assertion.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section IV-A (Implementation Details)] Please report the video frame sampling strategy (number of frames k, temporal stride, and whether frames are uniformly sampled) and the input resolution h×w used for images and video.
  2. [Eq. (6)] The definition Ld = LV/4 implies a specific downsampling factor; please state the pooling or convolution kernel and stride used in the downsampling module.
  3. [Table VII] The ERA per-class results would be easier to interpret with class sizes; in particular, VILA-1.5's 100.0 precision on 'car racing' and 0.0 on 'party' are likely affected by small class counts.
  4. [Fig. 2] The right panel of Fig. 2 is difficult to read; please enlarge the change-extraction module diagram and use notation consistent with Eqs. (2)–(4).
  5. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues (e.g., 'Comparision' in Tables III–IV, 'UA V' in Table II, 'E ARTH GPT' in Table V) that should be corrected.
  6. [Reproducibility] The paper promises that code and dataset will be released, but no link is provided; please supply a reproducibility statement or detailed configuration files.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; all headline results are measured on held-out test sets, and the prompt augmentation mechanism is an input-only function with a proper no-clue ablation.

full rationale

UniRS's claimed derivation chain is not circular. The architecture is initialized from VILA-1.5 and, for the change-captioning branch, from a Chg2Cap-pretrained Change Extraction module; this is ordinary transfer learning and supervised fine-tuning, not a fitted constant renamed as a prediction. The prompt augmentation mechanism (Eqs. 10-11) generates clues as Pc = Mb(I, Pg) from the frozen VILA-1.5 model using only the visual input and a fixed prompt; no ground-truth answer, test-set label, or evaluation statistic is used to construct the clues. The paper also provides a no-clue control in Table X, showing the mechanism's contribution explicitly. The Change Extraction module is pretrained on the LEVIR-CC training split and the LLM is fine-tuned on the same split, with evaluation on the standard held-out LEVIR-CC test set; this is standard supervised benchmark practice, not self-validation. All headline numbers (RSVQA-LR, RSVQA-HR, CRSVQA, LEVIR-CC CIDEr-D, and ERA overall accuracy) are reported on held-out test sets and compared against external expert models and VLMs, so the central claim does not reduce to its inputs. The paper does note that VILA-1.5 can hallucinate, as in the swimming-pool example in Fig. 4b, and that clues are less reliable at 256x256 resolution, as discussed after Table X; these are generalization and correctness concerns, not circularity. No load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems appear in the derivation.

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

No hand-fitted constants appear in the model equations; training hyperparameters are standard and reported in Sec. IV-A. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced; the 'change feature' marker is a token placeholder, not an entity. The main loaded premises are the quality of pretrained encoders and LLM, and the reliability of prompt clues.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption SigLIP visual encoder features are sufficiently rich for all three input types after only LLM fine-tuning.
    UniRS freezes the visual encoder and projector during instruction tuning (Sec. III-C); the model must succeed on counting, comparison, and change tasks with fixed features.
  • domain assumption Sheared-LLaMA-3B has enough capacity to learn VQA, change captioning, and video classification from frozen visual features.
    The LLM is the only trainable component during joint fine-tuning (Eq. 12, Sec. III-C).
  • ad hoc to paper The frozen VILA-1.5 base model generates clues that are useful for downstream tasks.
    Prompt augmentation (Eq. 10-11, Sec. III-B2) trusts the zero-shot outputs; the paper admits VILA-1.5 can hallucinate (Fig. 4b).
  • domain assumption The GeoChat benchmark evaluation protocol, including exclusion of counting and area questions on RSVQA-HR, is valid and comparable across methods.
    Reported zero-shot results in Table IV follow this protocol (Sec. IV-B).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of UniRS: Unifying Multi-temporal Remote Sensing Tasks through Vision Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BCKZKFLT

@misc{pith2026241220742,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: UniRS: Unifying Multi-temporal Remote Sensing Tasks through Vision Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BCKZKFLT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.20742}
}
read the original abstract

The domain gap between remote sensing imagery and natural images has recently received widespread attention and Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have demonstrated excellent generalization performance in remote sensing multimodal tasks. However, current research is still limited in exploring how remote sensing VLMs handle different types of visual inputs. To bridge this gap, we introduce \textbf{UniRS}, the first vision-language model \textbf{uni}fying multi-temporal \textbf{r}emote \textbf{s}ensing tasks across various types of visual input. UniRS supports single images, dual-time image pairs, and videos as input, enabling comprehensive remote sensing temporal analysis within a unified framework. We adopt a unified visual representation approach, enabling the model to accept various visual inputs. For dual-time image pair tasks, we customize a change extraction module to further enhance the extraction of spatiotemporal features. Additionally, we design a prompt augmentation mechanism tailored to the model's reasoning process, utilizing the prior knowledge of the general-purpose VLM to provide clues for UniRS. To promote multi-task knowledge sharing, the model is jointly fine-tuned on a mixed dataset. Experimental results show that UniRS achieves state-of-the-art performance across diverse tasks, including visual question answering, change captioning, and video scene classification, highlighting its versatility and effectiveness in unifying these multi-temporal remote sensing tasks. Our code and dataset will be released soon.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.20742 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our UniRS is a framework unifying multi-temporal remote sensing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The architecture of our UniRS. The left part of this figure includes the prompt augmentation mechanism and UniRS main architecture. UniRS is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The inference process of UniRS using prompt augmentation mechanism. During the execution of remote sensing tasks, visual inputs are first processed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative results of our UniRS on visual question answering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative results of our UniRS on video scene classification. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. RSVideo: Are Your Vision-Language Models Ready for Remote Sensing Videos?

    cs.CV 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new benchmark of 10,773 drone/satellite video questions with evidence annotations shows vision-language models drop to 29% accuracy (from 69.7% on natural video), and the authors' evidence-focused RL training raises...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Visual instruction tuning,

    H. Liu, C. Li, Q. Wu, and Y . J. Lee, “Visual instruction tuning,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 36, 2024. 1, 3, 4, 8, 9

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    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,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 35, pp. 23 716–23 736, 2022. 1, 3

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Vila: On pre-training for visual language models,

    J. Lin, H. Yin, W. Ping, P. Molchanov, M. Shoeybi, and S. Han, “Vila: On pre-training for visual language models,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 26 689–26 699. 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Minigpt-v2: large language model as a unified interface for vision-language multi-task learning,

    J. Chen, D. Zhu, X. Shen, X. Li, Z. Liu, P. Zhang, R. Krishnamoorthi, V . Chandra, Y . Xiong, and M. Elhoseiny, “Minigpt-v2: large language model as a unified interface for vision-language multi-task learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.09478 , 2023. 1, 7, 8

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    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 International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2022, pp. 12 888–12 900. 1

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Blip-2: Bootstrapping language- image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models,

    J. Li, D. Li, S. Savarese, and S. Hoi, “Blip-2: Bootstrapping language- image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2023, pp. 19 730–19 742. 1, 3

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    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. 1, 2

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback,

    L. Ouyang, J. Wu, X. Jiang, D. Almeida, C. Wainwright, P. Mishkin, C. Zhang, S. Agarwal, K. Slama, A. Ray et al. , “Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 35, pp. 27 730–27 744, 2022. 1

    work page 2022

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Qwen technical report,

    J. Bai, S. Bai, Y . Chu, Z. Cui, K. Dang, X. Deng, Y . Fan, W. Ge, Y . Han, F. Huang et al. , “Qwen technical report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16609, 2023. 1

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Language mod- els are few-shot learners,

    T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. D. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell et al., “Language mod- els are few-shot learners,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 1877–1901, 2020. 1, 2

    1901

  3. [11]

    Laion- 5b: An open large-scale dataset for training next generation image-text models,

    C. Schuhmann, R. Beaumont, R. Vencu, C. Gordon, R. Wightman, M. Cherti, T. Coombes, A. Katta, C. Mullis, M. Wortsmanet al., “Laion- 5b: An open large-scale dataset for training next generation image-text models,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 35, pp....

    2022

  4. [12]

    Llava-med: Training a large language-and-vision assistant for biomedicine in one day,

    C. Li, C. Wong, S. Zhang, N. Usuyama, H. Liu, J. Yang, T. Naumann, H. Poon, and J. Gao, “Llava-med: Training a large language-and-vision assistant for biomedicine in one day,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, 2024. 1, 3, 7

    2024

  5. [13]

    Mobility vla: Multimodal instruction navigation with long-context vlms and topological graphs,

    H.-T. L. Chiang, Z. Xu, Z. Fu, M. G. Jacob, T. Zhang, T.-W. E. Lee, W. Yu, C. Schenck, D. Rendleman, D. Shah et al. , “Mobility vla: Multimodal instruction navigation with long-context vlms and topological graphs,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07775 , 2024. 1

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    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 Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 58, no. 12, pp. 8555–8566, 2020. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING 12

    2020

  7. [15]

    Answer-type prediction for visual question answering,

    K. Kafle and C. Kanan, “Answer-type prediction for visual question answering,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2016, pp. 4976–4984. 1, 8

    2016

  8. [16]

    Multi-step question-driven visual ques- tion answering for remote sensing,

    M. Zhang, F. Chen, and B. Li, “Multi-step question-driven visual ques- tion answering for remote sensing,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , 2023. 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 11

    2023

  9. [17]

    Bi-modal transformer-based approach for visual question answering in remote sensing imagery,

    Y . Bazi, M. M. Al Rahhal, M. L. Mekhalfi, M. A. Al Zuair, and F. Melgani, “Bi-modal transformer-based approach for visual question answering in remote sensing imagery,” IEEE Transactions on Geo- science and Remote Sensing , vol. 60, pp. 1–11, 2022. 1, 7

    2022

  10. [18]

    Changes to captions: An attentive network for remote sensing change captioning,

    S. Chang and P. Ghamisi, “Changes to captions: An attentive network for remote sensing change captioning,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 2023. 1, 3, 7, 8, 9

    2023

  11. [19]

    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 IGARSS 2023- 2023 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium . IEEE, 2023, pp. 6668–6671. 1, 8

    2023

  12. [20]

    Futh-net: fusing temporal relations and holistic features for aerial video classification,

    P. Jin, L. Mou, Y . Hua, G.-S. Xia, and X. X. Zhu, “Futh-net: fusing temporal relations and holistic features for aerial video classification,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 60, pp. 1– 13, 2022. 1, 3, 9, 10

    2022

  13. [21]

    Ok-vqa: A visual question answering benchmark requiring external knowledge,

    K. Marino, M. Rastegari, A. Farhadi, and R. Mottaghi, “Ok-vqa: A visual question answering benchmark requiring external knowledge,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/cvf conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2019, pp. 3195–3204. 1, 8

    2019

  14. [22]

    Deep learning based event recognition in aerial imagery,

    A. H. S ¸ahin and H. F. Ates ¸, “Deep learning based event recognition in aerial imagery,” in 2023 8th International Conference on Computer Science and Engineering (UBMK) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 426–431. 1, 9, 10

    2023

  15. [23]

    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. 1, 3, 8

    2023

  16. [24]

    Lhrs-bot: Empowering remote sensing with vgi-enhanced large multimodal language model,

    D. Muhtar, Z. Li, F. Gu, X. Zhang, and P. Xiao, “Lhrs-bot: Empowering remote sensing with vgi-enhanced large multimodal language model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02544 , 2024. 1, 7, 8

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    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 Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 27 831–27 840. 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

    2024

  18. [26]

    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,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.09712 , 2024. 1, 3, 7

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Teochat: A large vision-language assistant for temporal earth observation data,

    J. A. Irvin, E. R. Liu, J. C. Chen, I. Dormoy, J. Kim, S. Khanna, Z. Zheng, and S. Ermon, “Teochat: A large vision-language assistant for temporal earth observation data,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.06234 ,

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    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 Sensing, vol. 16, no. 9, p. 1477, 2024. 1, 3

    2024

  21. [29]

    Rsgpt: A remote sensing vi- sion language model and benchmark,

    Y . Hu, J. Yuan, C. Wen, X. Lu, and X. Li, “Rsgpt: A remote sensing vi- sion language model and benchmark,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15266,

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    Earthgpt: A universal multi-modal large language model for multi-sensor image comprehension in remote sensing domain,

    W. Zhang, M. Cai, T. Zhang, Y . Zhuang, and X. Mao, “Earthgpt: A universal multi-modal large language model for multi-sensor image comprehension in remote sensing domain,” IEEE Transactions on Geo- science and Remote Sensing , 2024. 1, 3, 7, 8

    2024

  23. [31]

    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 Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 60, pp. 1–20, 2022. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

    2022

  24. [32]

    Era: A data set and deep learning benchmark for event recognition in aerial videos [software and data sets],

    L. Mou, Y . Hua, P. Jin, and X. X. Zhu, “Era: A data set and deep learning benchmark for event recognition in aerial videos [software and data sets],” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine , vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 125–133, 2020. 2, 6, 7, 10, 11

    2020

  25. [33]

    Gpt-4 technical report,

    J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkat et al. , “Gpt-4 technical report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 , 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Zero-shot video moment retrieval from frozen vision-language models,

    D. Luo, J. Huang, S. Gong, H. Jin, and Y . Liu, “Zero-shot video moment retrieval from frozen vision-language models,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, 2024, pp. 5464–5473. 2

    2024

  27. [35]

    Visual narratives: Large-scale hi- erarchical classification of art-historical images,

    M. Springstein, S. Schneider, J. Rahnama, J. Stalter, M. Kristen, E. M ¨uller-Budack, and R. Ewerth, “Visual narratives: Large-scale hi- erarchical classification of art-historical images,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision , 2...

    2024

  28. [36]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark et al., “Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2021, pp. 8748–8763. 3

    2021

  29. [37]

    Sigmoid loss for language image pre-training,

    X. Zhai, B. Mustafa, A. Kolesnikov, and L. Beyer, “Sigmoid loss for language image pre-training,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 11 975–11 986. 3, 4, 7

    2023

  30. [38]

    Improved baselines with visual instruction tuning,

    H. Liu, C. Li, Y . Li, and Y . J. Lee, “Improved baselines with visual instruction tuning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 26 296–26 306. 3

    2024

  31. [39]

    Skysensegpt: A fine-grained instruction tuning dataset and model for remote sensing vision-language understanding,

    J. Luo, Z. Pang, Y . Zhang, T. Wang, L. Wang, B. Dang, J. Lao, J. Wang, J. Chen, Y . Tan et al. , “Skysensegpt: A fine-grained instruction tuning dataset and model for remote sensing vision-language understanding,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.10100 , 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Nwpu- captions dataset and mlca-net for remote sensing image captioning,

    Q. Cheng, H. Huang, Y . Xu, Y . Zhou, H. Li, and Z. Wang, “Nwpu- captions dataset and mlca-net for remote sensing image captioning,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 60, pp. 1– 19, 2022. 3

    2022

  33. [41]

    Multiscale spatio- temporal network for aerial video event recognition,

    F. Yang, J. Zhang, Y . Zhao, A. Qin, and C. Gao, “Multiscale spatio- temporal network for aerial video event recognition,” in IGARSS 2022- 2022 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium . IEEE, 2022, pp. 7835–7838. 3, 9, 10

    2022

  34. [42]

    Alleviating spatial misalignment and motion interference for uav-based video recognition,

    G. Shi, X. Fu, C. Cao, and Z.-J. Zha, “Alleviating spatial misalignment and motion interference for uav-based video recognition,” in Proceed- ings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia , 2023, pp. 193–202. 3, 9, 10

    2023

  35. [43]

    Multitask learning: A knowledge-based source of inductive bias,

    R. Caruna, “Multitask learning: A knowledge-based source of inductive bias,” in Machine learning: Proceedings of the tenth international conference, 1993, pp. 41–48. 3

    1993

  36. [44]

    Multitask learning,

    R. Caruana, “Multitask learning,” Machine learning, vol. 28, pp. 41–75,

  37. [45]

    Multitask learning for crash analysis: A fine-tuned llm framework using twitter data,

    S. Jaradat, R. Nayak, A. Paz, H. I. Ashqar, and M. Elhenawy, “Multitask learning for crash analysis: A fine-tuned llm framework using twitter data,” Smart Cities, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 2422–2465, 2024. 3

    2024

  38. [46]

    Tigerbot: An open multilingual multitask llm,

    Y . Chen, W. Cai, L. Wu, X. Li, Z. Xin, and C. Fu, “Tigerbot: An open multilingual multitask llm,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.08688 , 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Mftcoder: Boosting code llms with multitask fine-tuning,

    B. Liu, C. Chen, Z. Gong, C. Liao, H. Wang, Z. Lei, M. Liang, D. Chen, M. Shen, H. Zhou et al., “Mftcoder: Boosting code llms with multitask fine-tuning,” in Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , 2024, pp. 5430–5441. 3

    2024

  40. [48]

    Sheared llama: Accelerating language model pre-training via structured pruning,

    M. Xia, T. Gao, Z. Zeng, and D. Chen, “Sheared llama: Accelerating language model pre-training via structured pruning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06694, 2023. 5, 7

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Dota: A large-scale dataset for object detection in aerial images,

    G.-S. Xia, X. Bai, J. Ding, Z. Zhu, S. Belongie, J. Luo, M. Datcu, M. Pelillo, and L. Zhang, “Dota: A large-scale dataset for object detection in aerial images,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2018, pp. 3974–3983. 6

    2018

  42. [50]

    Anchor- free oriented proposal generator for object detection,

    G. Cheng, J. Wang, K. Li, X. Xie, C. Lang, Y . Yao, and J. Han, “Anchor- free oriented proposal generator for object detection,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 60, pp. 1–11, 2022. 6

    2022

  43. [51]

    Fair1m: A benchmark dataset for fine-grained object recognition in high-resolution remote sensing imagery,

    X. Sun, P. Wang, Z. Yan, F. Xu, R. Wang, W. Diao, J. Chen, J. Li, Y . Feng, T. Xu et al. , “Fair1m: A benchmark dataset for fine-grained object recognition in high-resolution remote sensing imagery,” ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing , vol. 184, pp. 116– 130, 2022. 6

    2022

  44. [52]

    Remote sensing image scene classifi- cation: Benchmark and state of the art,

    G. Cheng, J. Han, and X. Lu, “Remote sensing image scene classifi- cation: Benchmark and state of the art,” Proceedings of the IEEE , vol. 105, no. 10, pp. 1865–1883, 2017. 6

    2017

  45. [53]

    Floodnet: A high resolution aerial imagery dataset for post flood scene understanding,

    M. Rahnemoonfar, T. Chowdhury, A. Sarkar, D. Varshney, M. Yari, and R. R. Murphy, “Floodnet: A high resolution aerial imagery dataset for post flood scene understanding,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 89 644–89 654,

  46. [54]

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

    H. Chen and Z. Shi, “A spatial-temporal attention-based method and a new dataset for remote sensing image change detection,” Remote Sensing, vol. 12, no. 10, p. 1662, 2020. 6

    2020

  47. [55]

    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 Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 61, pp. 1–15, 2023. 7

    2023

  48. [56]

    Temporal rela- tions matter: A two-pathway network for aerial video recognition,

    P. Jin, L. Mou, Y . Hua, G.-S. Xia, and X. X. Zhu, “Temporal rela- tions matter: A two-pathway network for aerial video recognition,” in 2021 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium IGARSS. IEEE, 2021, pp. 8221–8224. 9, 10

    2021

Pith tools

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