Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Lightweight Adapter Learning for More Generalized Remote Sensing Change Detection

T0 review · 5 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read CANet performs change detection on four datasets simultaneously by updating only 4.1–7.7% of network parameters, keeping F1 scores close to fully retrained models.

desk verdict A useful parameter-efficient adapter for multi-dataset change detection, but the 'more generalized' claim outruns the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19598 v1 pith:MZDEYFFE submitted 2025-04-28 cs.CV cs.AI

Dou Quan , Rufan Zhou , Shuang Wang , Ning Huyan , Dong Zhao , Yunan Li , Licheng Jiao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords changedetectionremotesensingadapterlearningparameter-efficientfine-tuningbatchnormalizationregionmaskgeneralizationmulti-dataset
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 tries to solve a practical problem: deep change-detection networks trained on one remote sensing dataset perform poorly on others, so each dataset normally needs its own full network. It proposes CANet, in which most parameters are shared across datasets and only a lightweight adapter is trained for each new dataset. The paper reports that updating 4.1%–7.7% of the parameters is enough to reach F1 scores close to full retraining on three target datasets, and that the same network keeps working on the original dataset. If true, this makes multi-dataset change detection cheaper in storage, compute, and labels.

What carries the argument

The central object is the change adapter network (CANet), split into a dataset-shared encoder-decoder and a lightweight per-dataset adapter. The paper expresses the split as $\hat{Y}=M_a(M_s(X_1,X_2))$, where $M_s$ is shared and $M_a$ is the adapter. The adapter contains an interesting change region mask (ICM), an attention-style mask generated from the raw prediction through convolutions, pooling, concatenation, and a Squeeze-and-Excitation block, plus a unique batch-normalization layer per dataset. The mask steers predictions toward the objects a dataset labels as changed, while the per-dataset batch-normalization layers absorb appearance differences. Only the last few decoder fusion blocks and a convolutional block are updated for a new dataset, amounting to 4.1%–7.7% of the network parameters.

What would settle it

Train CANet on CDD, freeze the shared module, and optimize only the adapter for a dataset with a large sensor or spectral shift, such as multispectral versus RGB imagery or optical versus SAR, then compare F1 with a fully fine-tuned network; if the gap exceeds the roughly 2 to 6.85 percentage-point gaps reported here, the assumption that per-dataset batch normalization absorbs distribution shift fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

CANet claims that a single shared change-detection network can serve multiple remote sensing datasets simultaneously if each dataset is given a small adapter containing an interesting change region mask and dataset-specific batch normalization. Trained first on one historical dataset (CDD), then adapted to SYSU, LEVIR, and WHU by updating only the adapter, CANet reaches F1 scores of 81.57%, 89.83%, and 91.17% with MobileNetV2, within 1–3 points of the same architecture fully retrained per dataset, while updating 4.1%–7.7% of parameters. The paper further claims this beats existing dataset-specific baselines on SYSU and WHU by 7.23% and 5.85% F1, and degrades much less under 10% training data.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that per-dataset batch-normalization statistics can absorb the entire appearance and distribution difference between datasets while all shared weights stay frozen.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Training a new dataset adapter costs 4.1%–7.7% of the network parameters, so adding a new change-detection dataset becomes cheap in storage and compute.
  • Because the shared module stays fixed, CANet keeps its performance on the historical dataset while also detecting changes on new datasets, which fine-tuned models lose.
  • Under 10% training data, CANet's F1 degrades far less than dataset-specific networks, so the adapter approach lowers the label requirement for new change-detection tasks.
  • The adapter can be attached to different backbones such as MobileNetV2, ResNet18, and IBN-Net variants, so the mechanism is not tied to one architecture.
  • Per-dataset batch normalization and an unshared ICM mask each contribute to the gains; ablations show removing them drops F1 by up to 6.85%.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same adapter recipe could be tested across a larger sensor shift, such as optical to SAR or multispectral to hyperspectral, where per-dataset batch normalization may not absorb the distribution gap.
  • Beyond the paper, the ablation's sensitivity to batch normalization suggests a measurable predictor: compute the batch-statistics divergence between source and target datasets and correlate it with the adapter-only performance drop; larger divergence should predict larger F1 loss.
  • Beyond the paper, the ICM's role implies a targeted experiment: pair two datasets that share a sensor but differ in labeling granularity; if ICM specifically handles labeling differences, it should matter more there than on sensor-shifted pairs.
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

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CANet, a 'change adapter network' for generalized remote sensing change detection. A shared encoder-decoder is trained on a historical dataset (CDD); for each new dataset, only a lightweight adapter is optimized, consisting of the last η feature-fusion blocks and a convolutional block, augmented by an 'interesting change region mask' (ICM) and per-dataset batch-normalization layers. Experiments on CDD, SYSU, LEVIR, and WHU claim that updating 4.1%-7.7% of the parameters yields F1 scores close to fully retrained networks (CANet-O) and better than most existing dataset-specific baselines. Additional experiments address training with limited labels and online fine-tuning.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the work would offer a practical way to share a change-detection model across datasets with substantially reduced training cost and parameter storage. The paper has real strengths: evaluation on four public datasets, four different CNN backbones, ablations that isolate the contributions of ICM and per-dataset BN, experiments with 10% training labels, and a comparison against online fine-tuning. However, the 'more generalized' claim is only demonstrated within a narrow family of very-high-resolution optical RGB change-detection datasets, and several methodological issues—selecting the adapter depth on the test sets, not reporting CANet's performance on the historical dataset, and omitting variance or significance information—weaken the quantitative conclusions. The core idea is plausible and worth publishing after the claims are scoped to the demonstrated setting and the experimental protocol is tightened.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4.1, Table 1; §3.5] The paper claims 'more generalized' and 'universal' CD, but all four evaluated datasets (CDD, SYSU, LEVIR, WHU) are very-high-resolution optical RGB image pairs at 0.2-0.5 m (CDD 0.03-1 m). No experiment involves a dataset with different spectral bands, SAR/optical modality, or substantially coarser resolution. The W/O BN ablation (Table 4) shows that per-dataset BN is necessary within this family, but it does not demonstrate that BN statistics plus a lightweight adapter can absorb large distribution shifts. Please either add experiments on a more diverse dataset (e.g., multi-spectral or SAR change detection) or explicitly scope the claims to adaptation across VHR optical CD datasets.
  2. [§4.5, Table 5] The adapter depth η is selected based on F1 on the SYSU, LEVIR, and WHU test sets, and the same test sets are later reported as the main results in Table 3. This is a form of test-set fitting and may make the reported F1 values optimistic. Use a held-out validation split for model selection and report test results for the selected η, or report all η values with uncertainty so readers can judge the sensitivity.
  3. [§3.5, §4.4, Table 3] The paper states that CANet performs well on the historical and new datasets simultaneously, but Table 3 reports results for SYSU, LEVIR, and WHU only; no CDD F1 is given for the adapter-based CANet. The online-training comparison in Fig. 4 is qualitative. Please add CDD results for CANet (with the adapter) and provide quantitative fine-tuning baselines to substantiate the 'simultaneously' claim.
  4. [§4.2, Tables 2-3] All reported metrics are single-run numbers without error bars or significance tests. Several comparisons are close: on LEVIR, CANet[M] F1 is 89.83 versus 90.70 for BAN and 90.91 for ChangeClip; on WHU, CANet[M] is 91.17 versus 92.17 and 92.25. The statement that CANet 'achieves better CD results on various datasets simultaneously' is not supported against every baseline, and the 'average improvement of 3.84%' compares the best CANet-O (a fully trained model) to the best other network rather than the adapter-based CANet. Please provide multiple runs with standard deviations or paired significance tests, and clarify the comparison protocol.
  5. [§4.4, §3.5] The training-efficiency claim is not benchmarked against other parameter-efficient adaptation methods (e.g., fine-tuning only the last blocks or LoRA-style adapters). Fig. 4 shows fine-tuning results but without quantitative values. A quantitative comparison to fine-tuning the shared network on new datasets with a comparable parameter budget is needed to support the claim that the adapter is a uniquely efficient mechanism for generalization.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§3.4, Eq. (7)] The dimensions of the mask m in Eqs. (6)-(7) are not stated. If m is a two-channel mask, please explain how the final binary change prediction is obtained from the masked output and how the cross-entropy loss in Eq. (2) is applied.
  2. [§1] In the contributions list, 'caused by excellent differences in the data distribution and labeling' should read 'caused by significant differences.'
  3. [§4.2] The text 'the best F1 result of CAMNet-O is 97.95%' should read 'CANet-O.'
  4. [§2.2] The citation '[12, 12, 44]' in the sentence about multi-temporal interaction contains a duplicate reference [12]; please fix.
  5. [§4.3, Fig. 3] The limited-training-sample results are presented only as a figure; include numeric values in a table to improve reproducibility and to support the claim that CANet degrades less than other methods.
  6. [§4.4, Fig. 4] The online-training comparison should include a table with F1 values for CDD and each new dataset, since the figure alone does not allow quantitative assessment.
  7. [§4.1] Please clarify the evaluation protocol for the historical dataset: after training the shared module on CDD, is an adapter also optimized for CDD, and are those results reported anywhere?

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No derivation-level circularity: CANet's transfer claim is supported by direct experiments, with only a non-load-bearing self-citation and a test-set-based choice of adapter depth as minor concerns.

full rationale

CANet's method section contains no derivation that could reduce to its own inputs: Eq. (5) simply composes a dataset-shared module M_s with a dataset-specific adapter M_a, and the paper's claims are empirical. The central result—that freezing M_s after CDD training and updating only the adapter (4.1%-7.7% of parameters) transfers to SYSU, LEVIR, and WHU—is supported by direct test-set measurements (Tables 2-3) and ablations (Table 4), not by an equation whose output equals its fitted input. The only self-citation, [49], appears in a routine list of deep learning CD methods and is not load-bearing, so it does not make the argument circular. The choice eta=5 in Section 4.5 was made after inspecting Table 5, which uses the same test sets later reported as main results; this is a mild test-set hyperparameter-selection validity concern, but it is not a circular reduction because the reported F1 scores are measurements of the selected network rather than quantities recomputed from the selection criterion. Similarly, the W/O BN ablation shows per-dataset BN is necessary but does not prove it is sufficient for large sensor or spectral shifts; that is an external-validity limitation, not circular reasoning. Overall the paper is self-contained empirically and its claims do not reduce to their inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard supervised learning assumptions plus three domain-specific assumptions: shared change semantics across four datasets, BN statistics capturing distribution shift, and the last decoder blocks having enough capacity for per-dataset adaptation. The only tuned free parameter is the adapter depth eta, selected on the test benchmarks. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • eta = 5
    Number of decoder FF blocks placed in the dataset-specific adapter. Chosen using Table 5, which evaluates F1 on the SYSU, LEVIR, and WHU test sets; larger values cost more parameters and give slightly higher F1.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Pixel-wise binary cross-entropy is an appropriate training objective for change detection
    Used in Eq. (2) and throughout; no justification beyond common practice.
  • domain assumption The four datasets (CDD, SYSU, LEVIR, WHU) share comparable change semantics and binary label format
    The method trains one shared decoder for all datasets; if label definitions were incompatible, the shared weights could not transfer. Stated implicitly in Section 3.3.
  • ad hoc to paper Per-dataset batch normalization statistics are sufficient to capture dataset distribution differences while sharing all other weights
    This is the load-bearing assumption of the adapter design; the W/O BN ablation (Table 4) is the only supporting evidence and covers only style differences, not large sensor shifts.
  • ad hoc to paper The decoder's last few blocks and a conv layer are sufficient capacity for dataset-specific adaptation
    The adapter is defined as the last eta FF blocks plus a convolutional block; the paper assumes this small module can absorb labeling and distribution shifts (Section 3.3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lightweight Adapter Learning for More Generalized Remote Sensing Change Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MZDEYFFE

@misc{pith2026250419598,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lightweight Adapter Learning for More Generalized Remote Sensing Change Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MZDEYFFE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19598}
}
read the original abstract

Deep learning methods have shown promising performances in remote sensing image change detection (CD). However, existing methods usually train a dataset-specific deep network for each dataset. Due to the significant differences in the data distribution and labeling between various datasets, the trained dataset-specific deep network has poor generalization performances on other datasets. To solve this problem, this paper proposes a change adapter network (CANet) for a more universal and generalized CD. CANet contains dataset-shared and dataset-specific learning modules. The former explores the discriminative features of images, and the latter designs a lightweight adapter model, to deal with the characteristics of different datasets in data distribution and labeling. The lightweight adapter can quickly generalize the deep network for new CD tasks with a small computation cost. Specifically, this paper proposes an interesting change region mask (ICM) in the adapter, which can adaptively focus on interested change objects and decrease the influence of labeling differences in various datasets. Moreover, CANet adopts a unique batch normalization layer for each dataset to deal with data distribution differences. Compared with existing deep learning methods, CANet can achieve satisfactory CD performances on various datasets simultaneously. Experimental results on several public datasets have verified the effectiveness and advantages of the proposed CANet on CD. CANet has a stronger generalization ability, smaller training costs (merely updating 4.1%-7.7% parameters), and better performances under limited training datasets than other deep learning methods, which also can be flexibly inserted with existing deep models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.19598 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Existing deep learning methods usually train a dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Framework of the proposed change adapter network, CANet, for change detection. CANet contains a dataset-shared learning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. F1 results of SYSU, LEVIR, and WHU datasets based on different numbers of training samples, i.e., 10% and 100%. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The results of the original deep models on the historical dataset (CDD) and the results of the updated deep models through the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.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. L-MCAT: Unpaired Multimodal Transformer with Contrastive Attention for Label-Efficient Satellite Image Classification

    cs.CV 2025-07 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    L-MCAT reports 95.4% accuracy with 20 labels per class on SEN12MS, but its contrastive alignment loss uses diagonal token pairing, contradicting the unpaired-data claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A transformer-based siamese network for change detection

    Wele Gedara Chaminda Bandara and Vishal M Patel. A transformer-based siamese network for change detection. In IGARSS 2022-2022 IEEE International Geoscience and Re- mote Sensing Symposium, pages 207–210. IEEE, 2022. 3

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Automatic analysis of the difference image for unsupervised change detection

    Lorenzo Bruzzone and Diego F Prieto. Automatic analysis of the difference image for unsupervised change detection. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote sensing , 38 (3):1171–1182, 2000. 2

    work page 2000

  3. [3]

    Unsupervised change detection in satellite im- ages using principal component analysis and k-means clus- tering

    Turgay Celik. Unsupervised change detection in satellite im- ages using principal component analysis and k-means clus- tering. IEEE geoscience and remote sensing letters , 6(4): 772–776, 2009. 2

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

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

    Hao Chen and Zhenwei Shi. A spatial-temporal attention- based method and a new dataset for remote sensing image change detection. Remote Sensing, 12(10):1662, 2020. 3, 5

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Remote sensing im- age change detection with transformers

    Hao Chen, Zipeng Qi, and Zhenwei Shi. Remote sensing im- age change detection with transformers. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 60:1–14, 2021. 3

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Dasnet: Dual attentive fully convolutional siamese networks for change detection in high-resolution satellite images

    Jie Chen, Ziyang Yuan, Jian Peng, Li Chen, Haozhe Huang, Jiawei Zhu, Yu Liu, and Haifeng Li. Dasnet: Dual attentive fully convolutional siamese networks for change detection in high-resolution satellite images. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing , 14:1194–1206, 2020. 3 8

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Fccdn: Feature constraint net- work for vhr image change detection.ISPRS Journal of Pho- togrammetry and Remote Sensing, 187:101–119, 2022

    Pan Chen, Bing Zhang, Danfeng Hong, Zhengchao Chen, Xuan Yang, and Baipeng Li. Fccdn: Feature constraint net- work for vhr image change detection.ISPRS Journal of Pho- togrammetry and Remote Sensing, 187:101–119, 2022. 3

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    A tm tasseled cap equivalent transformation for reflectance factor data

    Eric P Crist. A tm tasseled cap equivalent transformation for reflectance factor data. Remote sensing of Environment, 17 (3):301–306, 1985. 2

    work page 1985

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Fully convolutional siamese networks for change detection

    Rodrigo Caye Daudt, Bertr Le Saux, and Alexandre Boulch. Fully convolutional siamese networks for change detection. In 2018 25th IEEE International Conference on Image Pro- cessing (ICIP), pages 4063–4067. IEEE, 2018. 1, 3

    2018

  2. [10]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Trans- formers for image recognition at scale

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Syl- vain Gelly, et al. An image is worth 16x16 words: Trans- formers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint a...

    2010 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Snunet-cd: A densely connected siamese network for change detection of vhr images

    Sheng Fang, Kaiyu Li, Jinyuan Shao, and Zhe Li. Snunet-cd: A densely connected siamese network for change detection of vhr images. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Let- ters, 19:1–5, 2021. 3

    2021

  4. [12]

    Changer: Feature inter- action is what you need for change detection

    Sheng Fang, Kaiyu Li, and Zhe Li. Changer: Feature inter- action is what you need for change detection. IEEE Trans- actions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2023. 3

    2023

  5. [13]

    Change detection on remote sensing images using dual- branch multilevel intertemporal network

    Yuchao Feng, Jiawei Jiang, Honghui Xu, and Jianwei Zheng. Change detection on remote sensing images using dual- branch multilevel intertemporal network. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 61:1–15, 2023. 1

    2023

  6. [14]

    Change detection in synthetic aperture radar images based on deep neural networks.IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems, 27(1):125–138, 2015

    Maoguo Gong, Jiaojiao Zhao, Jia Liu, Qiguang Miao, and Licheng Jiao. Change detection in synthetic aperture radar images based on deep neural networks.IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems, 27(1):125–138, 2015. 1

    2015

  7. [15]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition, 2015

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition, 2015. 2, 3, 4, 5

    2015

  8. [16]

    Howard, Menglong Zhu, Bo Chen, Dmitry Kalenichenko, Weijun Wang, Tobias Weyand, Marco An- dreetto, and Hartwig Adam

    Andrew G. Howard, Menglong Zhu, Bo Chen, Dmitry Kalenichenko, Weijun Wang, Tobias Weyand, Marco An- dreetto, and Hartwig Adam. Mobilenets: Efficient convolu- tional neural networks for mobile vision applications, 2017. 3

    2017

  9. [17]

    Squeeze-and-excitation net- works

    Jie Hu, Li Shen, and Gang Sun. Squeeze-and-excitation net- works. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 7132–7141, 2018. 4

    2018

  10. [18]

    Spatiotemporal enhancement and interlevel fusion net- work for remote sensing images change detection

    Yanyuan Huang, Xinghua Li, Zhengshun Du, and Huanfeng Shen. Spatiotemporal enhancement and interlevel fusion net- work for remote sensing images change detection. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2024. 3

    2024

  11. [19]

    Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal co- variate shift

    Sergey Ioffe and Christian Szegedy. Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal co- variate shift. In International conference on machine learn- ing, pages 448–456. pmlr, 2015. 2

    2015

  12. [20]

    Fully convolutional networks for multisource building extraction from an open aerial and satellite imagery data set

    Shunping Ji, Shiqing Wei, and Meng Lu. Fully convolutional networks for multisource building extraction from an open aerial and satellite imagery data set. IEEE Transactions on geoscience and remote sensing, 57(1):574–586, 2018. 5

    2018

  13. [21]

    Deep learning for change detection in remote sensing images: Comprehensive review and meta-analysis

    Lazhar Khelifi and Max Mignotte. Deep learning for change detection in remote sensing images: Comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Ieee Access, 8:126385–126400, 2020. 2

    2020

  14. [22]

    Segment any- thing

    Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer White- head, Alexander C Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, et al. Segment any- thing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Con- ference on Computer Vision, pages 4015–4026, 2023. 3

    2023

  15. [23]

    Change detection in remote sensing images using conditional adversarial networks

    MA Lebedev, Yu V Vizilter, OV Vygolov, Vladimir A Knyaz, and A Yu Rubis. Change detection in remote sensing images using conditional adversarial networks. The Interna- tional Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 42:565–571, 2018. 5

    2018

  16. [24]

    A new learn- ing paradigm for foundation model-based remote sensing change detection, 2023

    Kaiyu Li, Xiangyong Cao, and Deyu Meng. A new learn- ing paradigm for foundation model-based remote sensing change detection, 2023. 1

    2023

  17. [25]

    A new learn- ing paradigm for foundation model-based remote-sensing change detection

    Kaiyu Li, Xiangyong Cao, and Deyu Meng. A new learn- ing paradigm for foundation model-based remote-sensing change detection. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Re- mote Sensing, 62:1–12, 2024. 3

    2024

  18. [26]

    Tran- sunetcd: A hybrid transformer network for change detec- tion in optical remote-sensing images

    Qingyang Li, Ruofei Zhong, Xin Du, and Yu Du. Tran- sunetcd: A hybrid transformer network for change detec- tion in optical remote-sensing images. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 60:1–19, 2022. 3

    2022

  19. [27]

    A densely attentive refinement network for change detection based on very-high-resolution bitemporal remote sensing im- ages

    Ziming Li, Chenxi Yan, Ying Sun, and Qinchuan Xin. A densely attentive refinement network for change detection based on very-high-resolution bitemporal remote sensing im- ages. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sens- ing, 60:1–18, 2022. 3

    2022

  20. [28]

    Re- moteclip: A vision language foundation model for remote sensing

    Fan Liu, Delong Chen, Zhangqingyun Guan, Xiaocong Zhou, Jiale Zhu, Qiaolin Ye, Liyong Fu, and Jun Zhou. Re- moteclip: A vision language foundation model for remote sensing. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2024. 3

    2024

  21. [29]

    Smnet: symmetric multi-task network for semantic change detection in remote sensing images based on cnn and transformer

    Yiting Niu, Haitao Guo, Jun Lu, Lei Ding, and Donghang Yu. Smnet: symmetric multi-task network for semantic change detection in remote sensing images based on cnn and transformer. Remote Sensing, 15(4):949, 2023. 3

    2023

  22. [30]

    Two at once: Enhancing learning and generalization capacities via ibn-net, 2020

    Xingang Pan, Ping Luo, Jianping Shi, and Xiaoou Tang. Two at once: Enhancing learning and generalization capacities via ibn-net, 2020. 4, 5

    2020

  23. [31]

    End-to- end change detection for high resolution satellite images us- ing improved unet++

    Daifeng Peng, Yongjun Zhang, and Haiyan Guan. End-to- end change detection for high resolution satellite images us- ing improved unet++. Remote Sensing, 11(11):1382, 2019. 2

    2019

  24. [32]

    A comparison of four algo- rithms for change detection in an urban environment.Remote sensing of environment, 63(2):95–100, 1998

    Merrill K Ridd and Jiajun Liu. A comparison of four algo- rithms for change detection in an urban environment.Remote sensing of environment, 63(2):95–100, 1998. 2

    1998

  25. [33]

    Multi-temporal scene classification and scene change detection with correlation based fusion

    Lixiang Ru, Bo Du, and Chen Wu. Multi-temporal scene classification and scene change detection with correlation based fusion. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 30: 1382–1394, 2020. 2

    2020

  26. [34]

    Mobilenetv2: Inverted residuals and linear bottlenecks, 2019

    Mark Sandler, Andrew Howard, Menglong Zhu, Andrey Zh- moginov, and Liang-Chieh Chen. Mobilenetv2: Inverted residuals and linear bottlenecks, 2019. 3, 4, 5

    2019

  27. [35]

    Sunet: Change detection for heterogeneous remote sensing images 9 from satellite and uav using a dual-channel fully convolution network

    Ruizhe Shao, Chun Du, Hao Chen, and Jun Li. Sunet: Change detection for heterogeneous remote sensing images 9 from satellite and uav using a dual-channel fully convolution network. Remote Sensing, 13(18):3750, 2021. 1

    2021

  28. [36]

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

    Qian Shi, Mengxi Liu, Shengchen Li, Xiaoping Liu, Fei Wang, and Liangpei Zhang. A deeply supervised attention metric-based network and an open aerial image dataset for remote sensing change detection. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 60:1–16, 2021. 1, 5

    2021

  29. [37]

    Change detection based on artificial intel- ligence: State-of-the-art and challenges

    Wenzhong Shi, Min Zhang, Rui Zhang, Shanxiong Chen, and Zhao Zhan. Change detection based on artificial intel- ligence: State-of-the-art and challenges. Remote Sensing, 12 (10):1688, 2020. 2

    2020

  30. [38]

    Review article digital change detection techniques using remotely-sensed data

    Ashbindu Singh. Review article digital change detection techniques using remotely-sensed data. International jour- nal of remote sensing, 10(6):989–1003, 1989. 2

    1989

  31. [39]

    Deep high-resolution representation learning for human pose es- timation

    Ke Sun, Bin Xiao, Dong Liu, and Jingdong Wang. Deep high-resolution representation learning for human pose es- timation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5693–5703,

  32. [40]

    Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszko- reit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need, 2023. 3

    2023

  33. [41]

    Cbam: Convolutional block attention module

    Sanghyun Woo, Jongchan Park, Joon-Young Lee, and In So Kweon. Cbam: Convolutional block attention module. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), pages 3–19, 2018. 4

    2018

  34. [42]

    Change detection based on deep siamese convolutional network for optical aerial images

    Yang Zhan, Kun Fu, Menglong Yan, Xian Sun, Hongqi Wang, and Xiaosong Qiu. Change detection based on deep siamese convolutional network for optical aerial images. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 14(10):1845– 1849, 2017. 2, 3

    2017

  35. [43]

    Swinsunet: Pure transformer network for remote sensing im- age change detection

    Cui Zhang, Liejun Wang, Shuli Cheng, and Yongming Li. Swinsunet: Pure transformer network for remote sensing im- age change detection. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 60:1–13, 2022. 3

    2022

  36. [44]

    Escnet: An end-to-end superpixel-enhanced change detection network for very-high-resolution remote sensing images

    Hongyan Zhang, Manhui Lin, Guangyi Yang, and Liangpei Zhang. Escnet: An end-to-end superpixel-enhanced change detection network for very-high-resolution remote sensing images. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learn- ing Systems, 2021. 3

    2021

  37. [45]

    Relation changes matter: Cross- temporal difference transformer for change detection in re- mote sensing images

    Kai Zhang, Xue Zhao, Feng Zhang, Lei Ding, Jiande Sun, and Lorenzo Bruzzone. Relation changes matter: Cross- temporal difference transformer for change detection in re- mote sensing images. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 61:1–15, 2023. 3

    2023

  38. [46]

    Triplet-based semantic relation learning for aerial remote sensing image change detection.IEEE Geo- science and Remote Sensing Letters, 16(2):266–270, 2018

    Mengya Zhang, Guangluan Xu, Keming Chen, Menglong Yan, and Xian Sun. Triplet-based semantic relation learning for aerial remote sensing image change detection.IEEE Geo- science and Remote Sensing Letters, 16(2):266–270, 2018. 3

    2018

  39. [47]

    Change is everywhere: Single-temporal supervised object change detection in remote sensing imagery

    Zhuo Zheng, Ailong Ma, Liangpei Zhang, and Yanfei Zhong. Change is everywhere: Single-temporal supervised object change detection in remote sensing imagery. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 15193–15202, 2021. 3

    2021

  40. [48]

    A multiple conditional random fields ensemble model for urban area detection in remote sensing optical images

    Ping Zhong and Runsheng Wang. A multiple conditional random fields ensemble model for urban area detection in remote sensing optical images. IEEE Transactions on Geo- science and Remote Sensing, 45(12):3978–3988, 2007. 2

    2007

  41. [49]

    A unified deep learning network for remote sensing image reg- istration and change detection

    Rufan Zhou, Dou Quan, Shuang Wang, Chonghua Lv, Xi- anwei Cao, Jocelyn Chanussot, Yi Li, and Licheng Jiao. A unified deep learning network for remote sensing image reg- istration and change detection. IEEE Transactions on Geo- science and Remote Sensing, 2023. 3 10

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.