Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Semi-supervised Semantic Segmentation for Remote Sensing Images via Multi-scale Uncertainty Consistency and Cross-Teacher-Student Attention

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 The paper claims that a new semi-supervised framework, MUCA, achieves state-of-the-art segmentation on ISPRS-Potsdam and LoveDA at 1%, 5%, and 10% labeled-data ratios by combining uncertainty-filtered multi-scale consistency with…

desk verdict MUCA is a sensible, well-ablated SSL recipe for RS segmentation, but the 'best' SOTA claim needs multiple seeds and standard splits before it holds up. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10736 v3 pith:WDGF44G6 submitted 2025-01-18 cs.CV cs.AI

Shanwen Wang , Xin Sun , Changrui Chen , Danfeng Hong , Jungong Han This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords semi-supervisedsemanticsegmentationremotesensingteacher-studentconsistencymulti-scaleuncertaintycross-teacher-studentattentionMonte-Carlodropoutpseudo-labelinglandcovermapping
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 is trying to establish that semi-supervised segmentation of remote sensing imagery can succeed with very few labeled pixels when the model is specialized to two obstacles in that domain: objects at wildly different scales and classes that look alike. Its proposed framework, MUCA, adds a Multi-Scale Uncertainty Consistency module that estimates pixel-wise uncertainty at four encoder stages with Monte-Carlo Dropout and applies consistency loss only where the teacher is confident. It then adds a Cross-Teacher-Student Attention module that uses the student encoder features as query and the teacher encoder features as key and value, reconstructing student features to help separate visually similar classes. On ISPRS-Potsdam and LoveDA at 1%, 5%, and 10% labeled data ratios, the paper reports the best mean IoU, mean F1, and Kappa against the compared semi-supervised methods, and shows the modules can be attached to standard CNN and Transformer segmentation backbones without changing their architecture.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the teacher-student pair itself, with the teacher held as an exponential moving average of the student. Inside it, the MSUC module computes, for each of the four encoder stages, a per-pixel uncertainty from multiple Monte-Carlo Dropout forward passes via prediction entropy, and applies a Huber consistency loss between teacher feature $V_t$ and student feature $V_s$ only where the uncertainty is below a threshold that ramps from half of $\ln 2$ up to $\ln 2$ during training. The CTSA module takes the student's fourth-stage features as query and the teacher's fourth-stage features as key and value, producing a reconstructed feature representation that the student decoder turns into a prediction trained against the student's own detached pseudo-labels. These two losses are added to the standard supervised cross-entropy and teacher-student consistency losses, which is what lets unlabeled data contribute multi-scale and inter-class-discriminative signal.

What would settle it

Retrain MUCA with the CTSA branch supervised instead by the teacher's predicted labels on unlabeled images while keeping everything else identical; if the resulting mIoU does not drop on ISPRS-Potsdam or LoveDA, the claim that the specific student-self-supervised CTSA design is responsible for the reported gains is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that rich multi-scale information and high inter-class similarity, the two domain-specific hurdles named in the paper, can be addressed within a teacher-student semi-supervised setup rather than by changing the segmentation network. The MSUC module aligns teacher and student feature maps at all four encoder stages under a Huber loss, using Monte-Carlo Dropout entropy as an uncertainty mask with a gradually rising threshold; the CTSA module reconstructs the student's encoder output through cross-attention with the teacher's features and trains the resulting decoder output against the student's own detached pseudo-labels. The paper reports that this design outperforms the compared state-of-the-art semi-supervised methods on both datasets at all three label ratios and also improves mIoU when plugged into U-Net, PSPNet, DeepLabv3+, and SegFormer-B2. The paper further asserts that this is the first remote-sensing semi-supervised model to simultaneously address multi-scale information and inter-class similarity while releasing open-source code.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the student model's own predicted labels on unlabeled images are reliable enough to supervise the CTSA reconstruction, since the algorithm trains the CTSA decoder against the student's own prediction rather than the teacher's pseudo-label, and if those predicted labels are wrong the attention module can reinforce the student's errors instead of correcting them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At low label ratios, MUCA reports mIoU gains over the compared semi-supervised methods on both ISPRS-Potsdam and LoveDA, with the reported performance remaining highest at 1%, 5%, and 10% labeled data.
  • Because the modules are non-intrusive, existing segmentation backbones such as U-Net, PSPNet, DeepLabv3+, and SegFormer-B2 can adopt them without changing their architecture, as demonstrated in the generalizability experiments.
  • The confusion-matrix and visualization results indicate that the hardest gains come from classes with high visual similarity, such as Building versus Impervious surfaces and Low vegetation versus Tree, which matches the design goal of CTSA.
  • The reported results support using uncertainty-filtered multi-scale consistency rather than single-scale or unfiltered consistency when unlabeled remote sensing data are plentiful but labels are scarce.
  • The model also reports stronger overall performance on classes with extreme scale variation, including large buildings and small cars on ISPRS-Potsdam, suggesting the MSUC module helps across object sizes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because the paper leaves long-tailed class distribution out of scope and LoveDA has strong class imbalance, adding class-balanced weighting to the MSUC uncertainty mask could push the reported LoveDA numbers further.
  • Editorial inference: the CTSA branch is supervised by the student's own detached pseudo-labels, so its benefit may depend on the student being already reasonably calibrated; replacing that target with teacher pseudo-labels or confidence-weighted targets is a direct testable variant.
  • Editorial inference: the dynamic uncertainty ramp acts as a curriculum from confident to uncertain pixels, so the same schedule may transfer to other label-scarce dense prediction tasks even outside remote sensing.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's own numbers show no semi-supervised model exceeds 52% mIoU on LoveDA, which suggests that even with MUCA, cross-city distribution shift and mixed land-cover boundaries remain the next bottleneck.
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 proposes MUCA, a semi-supervised semantic segmentation framework for remote sensing images, combining a multi-scale uncertainty consistency (MSUC) module that aligns teacher and student encoder features across four stages under a Monte-Carlo dropout uncertainty filter, and a cross-teacher-student attention (CTSA) module intended to let the teacher guide reconstruction of the student encoder features. The method is evaluated on ISPRS-Potsdam and LoveDA at 1%, 5%, and 10% labeled-data ratios against a range of SOTA semi-supervised methods, with reported mIoU, mF1, and Kappa improvements in all settings. The paper also reports ablations and a model-generalizability study, and releases code at https://github.com/wangshanwen001/RS-MUCA.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, MUCA is a useful and non-intrusive contribution to RS semi-supervised segmentation, addressing two genuinely relevant domain challenges (multi-scale objects and inter-class similarity). The paper provides clean ablations showing that both MSUC and CTSA improve over the baseline, and the open-source release is a practical strength. However, the headline SOTA claim is currently supported only by single-run experiments on a custom data split, and the CTSA loss as implemented uses the student's own pseudo-labels as targets rather than teacher-derived targets, which is a discrepancy with the described mechanism. Both issues are load-bearing for the paper's central claims and require substantial revision before the results can be assessed at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [IV-A, Tables V-VI] The central claim that MUCA outperforms all SOTA methods at 1%, 5%, and 10% labeled ratios rests on single-run mIoU comparisons on a custom 6:2:2 split of cropped images. Several decisive margins are small (e.g., 1% Potsdam: 71.33 vs. AllSpark 70.87; 5% LoveDA: 50.97 vs. AllSpark 49.75), and semi-supervised training is known to have high variance across seeds due to initialization, pseudo-label order, and augmentation sampling. Without multiple seeds, means, standard deviations, and a paired significance test, the observed differences cannot be distinguished from run-to-run noise. The authors should also clarify whether all baseline numbers were re-run under this exact same split and protocol, or taken from the original papers; if the latter, the comparison is not apples-to-apples.
  2. [III-C, Eq. 11, Algorithm 1] The CTSA module is described throughout as enabling the teacher network to guide the student network, but in Algorithm 1 lines 17-19 the loss L_CTSA is computed as cross-entropy between the CTSA decoder output and "Pseudos," which is the student model's own detached prediction (line 17). Eq. 11 defines \hat{y}_i as "the generated pseudo-label from unlabeled data" without specifying the source, and Figure 4 labels the target as "Student Pseudo-label." This means the implemented loss is a self-reconstruction objective that uses the student's own predictions as targets, not teacher guidance. If teacher guidance is the intended contribution, the loss should be computed against the teacher's pseudo-label; otherwise, the text should be revised to describe CTSA as a feature-reconstruction regularizer in which the teacher provides only key/value features. As written, the claimed mechanism and the actual implementation are inconsistent, which weakens the central contribution.
  3. [IV-D, Table I] The ablation study reports that adding CTSA alone gives 73.80 mIoU on Potsdam and MSUC alone gives 73.95, while their combination gives 74.62, but no variance estimates are provided. Given the small differences among these configurations and the absence of seeds, it is not possible to determine whether the two modules provide complementary benefits or whether one module's gain is within noise. The ablation should also be repeated across multiple seeds to support the claim that both modules contribute.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Algorithm 1] Lines 4-5 are missing from the algorithm listing, and line 17 computes Pseudos = model_s(xu_i) without specifying which augmentation (WA or SA) is applied to xu_i at that point; this is ambiguous given that the student is described as receiving strong augmentation in line 8.
  2. [III-B, Eq. 5] In Eq. 5, if no pixel in a feature map satisfies u_im < H for a given stage, the denominator sum of indicators is zero, leading to division by zero; the paper does not specify how this case is handled.
  3. [IV-E, Table VI] At 1% labeled data on LoveDA, MUCA's Forest IoU (22.57) is substantially lower than that of OnlySup (31.70) and several baselines; this weakens the paper's narrative that MUCA improves distinguishing highly similar classes, and the authors should discuss or investigate this class-level regression.
  4. [IV-C] The evaluation metrics section refers to "intersection and concurrency ratio" (Eq. 12); this should be "intersection over union."
  5. [I] The claim that this is the "first attempt to simultaneously address both challenges and provide an open-source implementation" is difficult to verify and is not essential to the technical contribution; the authors may consider softening this claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: MUCA's reported gains are empirical benchmark comparisons, and its training objectives (MSUC, CTSA) are defined from network features and external pseudo-label/uncertainty machinery rather than from the target metrics.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical: MUCA is compared against a set of external semi-supervised methods on ISPRS-Potsdam and LoveDA, with mIoU, mF1, and Kappa reported on held-out test splits. No quantity asserted as a prediction is obtained by fitting a parameter to that same quantity. L_CTSA is computed against the student's own detached pseudo-labels (Algorithm 1, lines 17-19), which is self-referential in the standard self-training sense, but it is a training regularizer rather than a derived theoretical result, and it does not make the reported benchmark numbers true by construction. MSUC uses Monte-Carlo Dropout uncertainty (Eqs. 3-5) and a Huber consistency loss; these are defined from network features and external prior work, not from the evaluation metrics. No load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' own prior work; self-citations appear only in the opening motivation and in unrelated prior-technique contexts. The absence of multiple seeds and the custom 6:2:2 split are statistical-validity concerns, not circularity, and per the reviewing rules they do not raise the circularity score. No circular step can be exhibited by quotation with an equation-level reduction.

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

The central claim is empirical; the model rests on standard SSL assumptions and a few hand-set hyperparameters. No new physical entities or fitted constants are introduced beyond the threshold and loss parameters.

free parameters (5)
  • Uncertainty threshold Hmax = ln2
    Pixels with uncertainty above this threshold are excluded from the MSUC loss; the value is hand-set in Section III-B with no sensitivity analysis.
  • Huber loss threshold rho = 1.0
    Set in Section III-B Eq. 6; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • EMA decay alpha = not reported
    Controls the teacher weight update in Section III-B; the numerical value is not given.
  • Monte-Carlo Dropout passes T = not reported
    The number of stochastic forward passes used for uncertainty estimation in Eqs. 3-4 is not stated.
  • Relative loss weights for LC, LMSUC, LCTSA = implicitly equal
    Equation 2 sums the three unsupervised losses with no weighting coefficients; the effective weights are free choices.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Teacher-student consistency and smoothness assumption: a robust model should produce similar predictions for perturbed inputs.
    Stated in Section III-C as the basis for LC and MSUC.
  • standard math Monte-Carlo Dropout approximates model uncertainty.
    Adopted from Gal and Ghahramani [57] and used in Section III-B for uncertainty estimation.
  • domain assumption EMA of student weights yields a reliable teacher.
    Used throughout the teacher-student framework, following Mean Teacher [10].
  • ad hoc to paper The student's own detached pseudo-labels are reliable enough to supervise CTSA reconstruction.
    Algorithm 1 lines 17-19 set L_CTSA = CE(CTSA output, student pseudo-label). This is load-bearing for the CTSA benefit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Semi-supervised Semantic Segmentation for Remote Sensing Images via Multi-scale Uncertainty Consistency and Cross-Teacher-Student Attention." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WDGF44G6

@misc{pith2026250110736,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Semi-supervised Semantic Segmentation for Remote Sensing Images via Multi-scale Uncertainty Consistency and Cross-Teacher-Student Attention},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WDGF44G6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10736}
}
read the original abstract

Semi-supervised learning offers an appealing solution for remote sensing (RS) image segmentation to relieve the burden of labor-intensive pixel-level labeling. However, RS images pose unique challenges, including rich multi-scale features and high inter-class similarity. To address these problems, this paper proposes a novel semi-supervised Multi-Scale Uncertainty and Cross-Teacher-Student Attention (MUCA) model for RS image semantic segmentation tasks. Specifically, MUCA constrains the consistency among feature maps at different layers of the network by introducing a multi-scale uncertainty consistency regularization. It improves the multi-scale learning capability of semi-supervised algorithms on unlabeled data. Additionally, MUCA utilizes a Cross-Teacher-Student attention mechanism to guide the student network, guiding the student network to construct more discriminative feature representations through complementary features from the teacher network. This design effectively integrates weak and strong augmentations (WA and SA) to further boost segmentation performance. To verify the effectiveness of our model, we conduct extensive experiments on ISPRS-Potsdam and LoveDA datasets. The experimental results show the superiority of our method over state-of-the-art semi-supervised methods. Notably, our model excels in distinguishing highly similar objects, showcasing its potential for advancing semi-supervised RS image segmentation tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10736 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) and (b) Image from ISPRS-Potsdam dataset and its Ground Truth. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overall structure of our semi-supervised semantic segmentation model for RS images. The top and bottom sections correspond to the unsupervised [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. MSUC model structure. Uncertainty is computed for the feature layer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: CTSA model structure. An attention approach allows the teacher [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization confusion matrix of model without MUCA (a) and with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visual comparison of semantic segmentation results with different semisupervised methods on the ISPRS-Potsdam dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Visual comparison of semantic segmentation results with different semisupervised methods on the LoveDA dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.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. RS-MTDF: Multi-Teacher Distillation and Fusion for Remote Sensing Semi-Supervised Semantic Segmentation

    cs.CV 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A multi-teacher framework distills frozen DINOv2 and CLIP features into a student model to improve low-label remote sensing segmentation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Swin transformer embedding unet for remote sensing image semantic segmen- tation,

    X. He, Y . Zhou, J. Zhao, D. Zhang, R. Yao, and Y . Xue, “Swin transformer embedding unet for remote sensing image semantic segmen- tation,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 60, pp. 1–15, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Spectralgpt: Spectral remote sensing foun- dation model,

    D. Hong, B. Zhang, X. Li, Y . Li, C. Li, J. Yao, N. Yokoya, H. Li, P. Ghamisi, X. Jia et al. , “Spectralgpt: Spectral remote sensing foun- dation model,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2024

    2024

  3. [3]

    A deep framework for eddy detection and tracking from satellite sea surface height data,

    X. Sun, M. Zhang, J. Dong, R. Lguensat, Y . Yang, and X. Lu, “A deep framework for eddy detection and tracking from satellite sea surface height data,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 59, no. 9, pp. 7224–7234, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    A modular remote sensing big data framework,

    C. Xu, X. Du, X. Fan, Z. Yan, X. Kang, J. Zhu, and Z. Hu, “A modular remote sensing big data framework,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 60, pp. 1–11, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Attention- convnet network for ocean-front prediction via remote sensing sst images,

    Y . Yang, X. Sun, J. Dong, K.-M. Lam, and X. Xiang Zhu, “Attention- convnet network for ocean-front prediction via remote sensing sst images,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 62, pp. 1–16, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

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

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

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Change detection from very-high-spatial-resolution op- tical remote sensing images: Methods, applications, and future direc- tions,

    D. Wen, X. Huang, F. Bovolo, J. Li, X. Ke, A. Zhang, and J. A. Benediktsson, “Change detection from very-high-spatial-resolution op- tical remote sensing images: Methods, applications, and future direc- tions,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine , vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 68–101, 2021. JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2024 13 Input ...

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Confidence-weighted dual- teacher networks with biased contrastive learning for semi-supervised semantic segmentation in remote sensing images,

    Y . Xin, Z. Fan, X. Qi, Y . Zhang, and X. Li, “Confidence-weighted dual- teacher networks with biased contrastive learning for semi-supervised semantic segmentation in remote sensing images,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Decouple and weight semi- supervised semantic segmentation of remote sensing images,

    W. Huang, Y . Shi, Z. Xiong, and X. X. Zhu, “Decouple and weight semi- supervised semantic segmentation of remote sensing images,” ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing , vol. 212, pp. 13–26, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Mean teachers are better role mod- els: Weight-averaged consistency targets improve semi-supervised deep learning results,

    A. Tarvainen and H. Valpola, “Mean teachers are better role mod- els: Weight-averaged consistency targets improve semi-supervised deep learning results,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  3. [11]

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

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

    2020

  4. [12]

    Allspark: Reborn labeled features from unlabeled in transformer for semi-supervised semantic segmenta- tion,

    H. Wang, Q. Zhang, Y . Li, and X. Li, “Allspark: Reborn labeled features from unlabeled in transformer for semi-supervised semantic segmenta- tion,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , June 2024, pp. 3627–3636

    2024

  5. [13]

    A survey on semi- supervised semantic segmentation,

    A. Pel ´aez-Vegas, P. Mesejo, and J. Luengo, “A survey on semi- supervised semantic segmentation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.09899 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Pseudo features-guided self-training for domain adaptive semantic segmentation of satellite images,

    F. Zhang, Y . Shi, Z. Xiong, W. Huang, and X. X. Zhu, “Pseudo features-guided self-training for domain adaptive semantic segmentation of satellite images,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 61, pp. 1–14, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Dynamic and adaptive self-training for semi-supervised remote sensing image semantic segmentation,

    J. Jin, W. Lu, H. Yu, X. Rong, X. Sun, and Y . Wu, “Dynamic and adaptive self-training for semi-supervised remote sensing image semantic segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Poly kernel inception network for remote sensing detection,

    X. Cai, Q. Lai, Y . Wang, W. Wang, Z. Sun, and Y . Yao, “Poly kernel inception network for remote sensing detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 27 706–27 716

    2024

  9. [17]

    Artificial intelligence for remote sensing data analysis: A review of challenges and opportunities,

    L. Zhang and L. Zhang, “Artificial intelligence for remote sensing data analysis: A review of challenges and opportunities,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine , vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 270–294, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

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

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

    2023

  11. [19]

    Desformer: A dual-branch encoding strategy for semantic segmentation of very-high-resolution remote sensing images based on feature interaction and multi-scale context fusion,

    W. Liu, N. Cui, L. Guo, S. Du, and W. Wang, “Desformer: A dual-branch encoding strategy for semantic segmentation of very-high-resolution remote sensing images based on feature interaction and multi-scale context fusion,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Multiscale prototype contrast network for high-resolution aerial imagery semantic segmentation,

    Q. Wang, X. Luo, J. Feng, G. Zhang, X. Jia, and J. Yin, “Multiscale prototype contrast network for high-resolution aerial imagery semantic segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 61, pp. 1–14, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Semantic segmentation with attention mechanism for remote sensing images,

    Q. Zhao, J. Liu, Y . Li, and H. Zhang, “Semantic segmentation with attention mechanism for remote sensing images,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 60, pp. 1–13, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    Gaussian dynamic convolution for efficient single-image segmentation,

    X. Sun, C. Chen, X. Wang, J. Dong, H. Zhou, and S. Chen, “Gaussian dynamic convolution for efficient single-image segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 2937–2948, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Rethinking the upsampling layer in hyperspectral image super resolution,

    H. Shi, F. Zhou, X. Sun, and J. Han, “Rethinking the upsampling layer in hyperspectral image super resolution,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.18664, 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    Adaptive morphology filter: A lightweight module for deep hyperspectral image classification,

    F. Zhou, X. Sun, C. Sun, J. Dong, and X. X. Zhu, “Adaptive morphology filter: A lightweight module for deep hyperspectral image classification,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 61, pp. 1– 16, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Earthnets: Em- powering artificial intelligence for earth observation,

    Z. Xiong, F. Zhang, Y . Wang, Y . Shi, and X. X. Zhu, “Earthnets: Em- powering artificial intelligence for earth observation,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine , 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Vision-language models in remote sensing: Current progress and future trends,

    X. Li, C. Wen, Y . Hu, Z. Yuan, and X. X. Zhu, “Vision-language models in remote sensing: Current progress and future trends,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine , 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Cross-city matters: A multimodal remote sensing benchmark dataset for cross-city semantic segmentation using high-resolution domain adaptation networks,

    D. Hong, B. Zhang, H. Li, Y . Li, J. Yao, C. Li, M. Werner, J. Chanussot, A. Zipf, and X. X. Zhu, “Cross-city matters: A multimodal remote sensing benchmark dataset for cross-city semantic segmentation using high-resolution domain adaptation networks,” Remote Sensing of Envi- ...

    2023

  20. [28]

    Sam enhanced semantic segmentation for remote sensing imagery without additional training,

    Y . Qiao, B. Zhong, B. Du, H. Cai, J. Jiang, Q. Liu, A. Yang, J. Wu, and X. Wang, “Sam enhanced semantic segmentation for remote sensing imagery without additional training,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , 2025

    2025

  21. [29]

    A dual spatial-graph refinement network for building extraction from aerial images,

    R. Deng, Z. Guo, Q. Chen, X. Sun, Q. Chen, H. Wang, and X. Liu, “A dual spatial-graph refinement network for building extraction from aerial images,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Eca-mobilenetv3 (large)+ segnet model for binary sugarcane classification of remotely sensed images,

    G. Zhou, W. Liu, Q. Zhu, Y . Lu, and Y . Liu, “Eca-mobilenetv3 (large)+ segnet model for binary sugarcane classification of remotely sensed images,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 60, pp. 1–15, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Uiu-net: U-net in u-net for infrared small object detection,

    X. Wu, D. Hong, and J. Chanussot, “Uiu-net: U-net in u-net for infrared small object detection,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 32, pp. 364–376, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Hunting sparsity: Density- guided contrastive learning for semi-supervised semantic segmentation,

    X. Wang, B. Zhang, L. Yu, and J. Xiao, “Hunting sparsity: Density- guided contrastive learning for semi-supervised semantic segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 3114–3123

    2023

  25. [33]

    Handling image and label resolution mismatch in remote sensing,

    S. Workman, A. Hadzic, and M. U. Rafique, “Handling image and label resolution mismatch in remote sensing,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 3709– 3718

    2023

  26. [34]

    Building extraction from remote sensing images with dog as prior constraint,

    Y . Quan, A. Yu, X. Cao, C. Qiu, X. Zhang, B. Liu, and P. He, “Building extraction from remote sensing images with dog as prior constraint,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing , vol. 15, pp. 6559–6570, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Progressive recurrent neural network for multispectral remote sensing image destriping,

    J. Li, J. Zhang, J. Han, C. Yan, and D. Zeng, “Progressive recurrent neural network for multispectral remote sensing image destriping,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Nt-net: A semantic segmentation network for extracting lake water bodies from optical remote sensing images based on transformer,

    H.-F. Zhong, Q. Sun, H.-M. Sun, and R.-S. Jia, “Nt-net: A semantic segmentation network for extracting lake water bodies from optical remote sensing images based on transformer,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 60, pp. 1–13, 2022

    2022

  29. [37]

    Learning from future: A novel self-training framework for semantic segmentation,

    Y . Du, Y . Shen, H. Wang, J. Fei, W. Li, L. Wu, R. Zhao, Z. Fu, and Q. Liu, “Learning from future: A novel self-training framework for semantic segmentation,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 35, pp. 4749–4761, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    A three-stage self-training framework for semi-supervised semantic segmentation,

    R. Ke, A. I. Aviles-Rivero, S. Pandey, S. Reddy, and C.-B. Sch ¨onlieb, “A three-stage self-training framework for semi-supervised semantic segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , vol. 31, pp. 1805–1815, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    A simple baseline for semi-supervised semantic segmentation with strong data augmentation,

    J. Yuan, Y . Liu, C. Shen, Z. Wang, and H. Li, “A simple baseline for semi-supervised semantic segmentation with strong data augmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2021, pp. 8229–8238

    2021

  32. [40]

    Semi-supervised semantic segmentation via gentle teaching assistant,

    Y . Jin, J. Wang, and D. Lin, “Semi-supervised semantic segmentation via gentle teaching assistant,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 35, pp. 2803–2816, 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    Semi-supervised semantic segmentation using unreliable pseudo- labels,

    Y . Wang, H. Wang, Y . Shen, J. Fei, W. Li, G. Jin, L. Wu, R. Zhao, and X. Le, “Semi-supervised semantic segmentation using unreliable pseudo- labels,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2022, pp. 4248–4257

    2022

  34. [42]

    Classmix: Segmentation-based data augmentation for semi-supervised learning,

    V . Olsson, W. Tranheden, J. Pinto, and L. Svensson, “Classmix: Segmentation-based data augmentation for semi-supervised learning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision , 2021, pp. 1369–1378

    2021

  35. [43]

    Semi-supervised semantic segmen- tation with cross-consistency training,

    Y . Ouali, C. Hudelot, and M. Tami, “Semi-supervised semantic segmen- tation with cross-consistency training,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2020, pp. 12 674–12 684

    2020

  36. [44]

    Semi-supervised semantic segmentation with cross pseudo supervision,

    X. Chen, Y . Yuan, G. Zeng, and J. Wang, “Semi-supervised semantic segmentation with cross pseudo supervision,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2021, pp. 2613–2622

    2021

  37. [45]

    Collaborative learning of lightweight convolutional neural network and deep clustering for hyperspectral image semi-supervised classification with limited training samples,

    B. Fang, Y . Li, H. Zhang, and J. C.-W. Chan, “Collaborative learning of lightweight convolutional neural network and deep clustering for hyperspectral image semi-supervised classification with limited training samples,” ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing , vol...

    2020

  38. [46]

    Stcrnet: A semi-supervised network based on self-training and consistency regularization for change detec- tion in vhr remote sensing images,

    L. Wang, M. Zhang, and W. Shi, “Stcrnet: A semi-supervised network based on self-training and consistency regularization for change detec- tion in vhr remote sensing images,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing , 2023

    2023

  39. [47]

    Consistency regularization based on masked image modeling for semi-supervised remote sensing semantic segmentation,

    M. Cai, H. Chen, T. Zhang, Y . Zhuang, and L. Chen, “Consistency regularization based on masked image modeling for semi-supervised remote sensing semantic segmentation,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing , 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    Tsg-seg: Temporal-selective guidance for semi-supervised semantic segmentation of 3d lidar point clouds,

    W. Xuan, H. Qi, and A. Xiao, “Tsg-seg: Temporal-selective guidance for semi-supervised semantic segmentation of 3d lidar point clouds,” ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing , vol. 216, pp. 217–228, 2024

    2024

  41. [49]

    Simple and efficient: A semisupervised learning framework for remote sensing image semantic segmentation,

    X. Lu, L. Jiao, F. Liu, S. Yang, X. Liu, Z. Feng, L. Li, and P. Chen, “Simple and efficient: A semisupervised learning framework for remote sensing image semantic segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Geo- science and Remote Sensing , vol. 60, pp. 1–16, 2022

    2022

  42. [50]

    Semisupervised semantic segmen- tation of remote sensing images with consistency self-training,

    J. Li, B. Sun, S. Li, and X. Kang, “Semisupervised semantic segmen- tation of remote sensing images with consistency self-training,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 60, pp. 1–11, 2021

    2021

  43. [51]

    Diversenet: Decision diversified semi-supervised semantic segmentation networks for remote sensing imagery,

    W. Ma, O. Karakus, and P. L. Rosin, “Diversenet: Decision diversified semi-supervised semantic segmentation networks for remote sensing imagery,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.13716 , 2023. JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2024 15

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Mcmcnet: A semi- supervised road extraction network for high-resolution remote sensing images via multiple consistency and multi-task constraints,

    L. Gao, Y . Zhou, J. Tian, W. Cai, and Z. Lv, “Mcmcnet: A semi- supervised road extraction network for high-resolution remote sensing images via multiple consistency and multi-task constraints,” IEEE Trans- actions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , 2024

    2024

  45. [53]

    Semiroadexnet: A semi- supervised network for road extraction from remote sensing imagery via adversarial learning,

    H. Chen, Z. Li, J. Wu, W. Xiong, and C. Du, “Semiroadexnet: A semi- supervised network for road extraction from remote sensing imagery via adversarial learning,” ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, vol. 198, pp. 169–183, 2023

    2023

  46. [54]

    A multi- level label-aware semi-supervised framework for remote sensing scene classification,

    Q. Liu, M. He, Y . Kuang, L. Wu, J. Yue, and L. Fang, “A multi- level label-aware semi-supervised framework for remote sensing scene classification,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 61, pp. 1–12, 2023

    2023

  47. [55]

    Mdmasnet: A dual-task interactive semi-supervised remote sensing image segmentation method,

    L. Zhang, Z. Yang, G. Zhou, C. Lu, A. Chen, Y . Ding, Y . Wang, L. Li, and W. Cai, “Mdmasnet: A dual-task interactive semi-supervised remote sensing image segmentation method,” Signal Processing , vol. 212, p. 109152, 2023

    2023

  48. [56]

    Semi-supervised bidirectional alignment for remote sensing cross-domain scene classifi- cation,

    W. Huang, Y . Shi, Z. Xiong, Q. Wang, and X. X. Zhu, “Semi-supervised bidirectional alignment for remote sensing cross-domain scene classifi- cation,” ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing , vol. 195, pp. 192–203, 2023

    2023

  49. [57]

    Dropout as a bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning,

    Y . Gal and Z. Ghahramani, “Dropout as a bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning,” in international conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2016, pp. 1050–1059

    2016

  50. [58]

    Temporal ensembling for semi-supervised learn- ing,

    S. Laine and T. Aila, “Temporal ensembling for semi-supervised learn- ing,” in International Conference on Learning Representations , 2022

    2022

  51. [59]

    Semi-supervised learning (chapelle, o. et al., eds.; 2006)[book reviews],

    O. Chapelle, B. Scholkopf, and A. Zien, “Semi-supervised learning (chapelle, o. et al., eds.; 2006)[book reviews],” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks , vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 542–542, 2009

    2006

  52. [60]

    Loveda: A remote sensing land-cover dataset for domain adaptive semantic segmentation,

    J. Wang, Z. Zheng, A. Ma, X. Lu, and Y . Zhong, “Loveda: A remote sensing land-cover dataset for domain adaptive semantic segmentation,” in Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems Track on Datasets and Benchmarks , J. Vanschoren and S. Yeung, Eds., vol. 1. Cur...

    2021

  53. [61]

    ISPRS Potsdam Dataset,

    ISPRS, “ISPRS Potsdam Dataset,” https://www.isprs.org/education/ benchmarks/UrbanSemLab/2d-sem-label-potsdam.aspx?utm source= chatgpt.com, 2018, accessed: 2024-10-8

    2018

  54. [62]

    Cutmix: Reg- ularization strategy to train strong classifiers with localizable features,

    S. Yun, D. Han, S. J. Oh, S. Chun, J. Choe, and Y . Yoo, “Cutmix: Reg- ularization strategy to train strong classifiers with localizable features,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2019, pp. 6023–6032. Shanwen Wang received the M.Sc. ...

    2019

Pith tools

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