Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 107 references

SARATR-X-v2: Scale-Aware Structural Pre-Training for SAR Foundation Models

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read SARATR-X-v2 establishes that a SAR pre-training target should be both approximately invariant to multiplicative speckle and multi-scale, and shows that fusing six fixed structural operators with learnable weights yields a target that reduce

desk verdict Strong target-design idea and a clean ablation, but the headline results hinge on an ATRNet-STAR pre-training/evaluation overlap that the paper never explicitly rules out. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.23238 v1 pith:J5MQO7YX submitted 2026-07-25 cs.CV

Weijie Li , Yafei Song , Yongxiang Liu , Bowen Peng , Jie Zhou , Jingyuan Xia , Wei Yang , Tianpeng Liu
show 2 more authors
Zhen Liu Li Liu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords SARpre-trainingmaskedimagemodelingreconstructiontargetdesignspecklestabilitymulti-scalestructurallearnablecross-scalefusionself-supervisedlearningcoherentimaging
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

SARATR-X-v2 tries to settle what a pre-training target for synthetic aperture radar should be. The paper argues that a target must be approximately invariant to the multiplicative speckle inherent in coherent imaging, and must span the heterogeneous spatial scales that downstream tasks use. It constructs such a target by fusing six fixed structural operators—a blind-spot local aggregation and five directional log-ratio region contrasts—with learnable weights. The paper reports that this fused target is about two orders of magnitude less sensitive to synthetic speckle than raw pixel supervision, and that it achieves the best transfer results on ten of twelve SAR benchmarks spanning classification, detection, and segmentation. The deeper claim is that stability under speckle and downstream transfer are two facets of the same design principle.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the fused structural target y = Σ α_s f_s(x̃). The finest branch f_1 is a blind-spot 3×3 mean that excludes the center pixel, preventing local speckle from entering the target; the five larger branches compute directional log-ratio contrasts between disjoint half-regions at radii 3, 5, 9, 13, and 17, so multiplicative speckle affecting both halves cancels in the difference. The alpha weights are learned softmax scalars, making the composition of scales adaptive. A standard masked L2 loss reconstructs this single target; the physics is carried by the target definition rather than by extra loss terms.

What would settle it

Pre-train the same backbone with the fused structural target and with pixel targets, but add correlated speckle or thermal noise to the real SAR pre-training images (not just synthetic log-normal speckle); if the transfer gap on held-out benchmarks collapses or reverses, the stability mechanism is not the driver. A more direct test: measure the speckle-induced drift of the trained encoder's own output features—not the fixed target maps—and check whether the ~100x reduction still holds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that a SAR pre-training target built from fixed, physics-grounded extractors—defined so that multiplicative speckle cancels in log-ratio contrasts and is excluded by a blind spot—can be merged into a single supervision signal via learnable cross-scale weights, and that this signal transfers better than pixel-space reconstruction or any fixed single-scale structural target. The evidence includes a measured ~100x reduction in target drift under log-normal speckle perturbation, a strong rank correlation between target drift and downstream accuracy, and ablations showing the gain comes from the target design and its learned fusion rather than from the backbone or

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on SAR intensity being modeled as multiplicative unit-mean speckle and on the blind-spot and log-ratio operators canceling that speckle well enough; if real SAR noise is correlated, additive, or miscalibrated, the cancellation (and the transfer gain attributed to it) may weaken.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Replacing pixel-space reconstruction with the fused structural target improves frozen-backbone transfer and fine-tuning across classification, detection, and segmentation benchmarks.
  • Pre-training targets with lower speckle drift tend to transfer better: across eight target settings, drift and 10-shot accuracy show a strong inverse rank correlation.
  • The learned fusion assigns roughly 90% of weight to the largest scale, yet the smaller branches add structured refinements at boundaries and strong scatterers; removing them hurts performance.
  • A target that is stable but too narrow in scale can transfer worse than pixel supervision, so stability alone is insufficient.
  • The gains are attributable to target design rather than backbone or data scale, since ablations hold the pre-training framework fixed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The two-condition framework—speckle stability plus scale compatibility—likely transfers to other coherent imaging modalities such as ultrasound or OCT, where multiplicative noise and multi-scale anatomy matter; one could test the same target design there.
  • The drift measure could serve as a cheap, pre-training-free diagnostic: rank candidate targets by synthetic speckle drift to predict transfer, saving compute before full pre-training runs.
  • The scalar per-scale fusion could be extended to spatially varying weights, letting different image regions blend fine and coarse structure differently; this is a natural next test.
  • The paper only validates under synthetic log-normal speckle; an open question is whether the ~100x drift reduction and the transfer advantage survive correlated speckle, additive thermal noise, or radiometric miscalibration.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SARATR-X-v2, a self-supervised pre-training framework for SAR that replaces pixel-space masked reconstruction with a fused multi-scale structural target. The target is built from fixed SAR-motivated operators — a blind-spot 3×3 aggregation and five directional log-ratio region-contrast kernels spanning receptive fields from 3×3 to 35×35 — combined through learnable softmax weights. The authors argue that this target satisfies two conditions: physics-grounded stability under multiplicative speckle and semantic scale compatibility. They report state-of-the-art transfer results on 12 SAR benchmarks across classification, detection, and segmentation, and present a stability–transfer correlation (Spearman ρ = −0.93) based on eight pre-training targets. The paper includes ablations (Table IV) separating the contributions of the backbone, target definition, and fusion strategy, and an appendix with per-benchmark tables and implementation details.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper makes a valuable conceptual contribution: it articulates two measurable target-design criteria for SAR masked pre-training and instantiates them in a single, self-contained objective. The central ablation in Table IV is well designed: it isolates the target from the backbone by fixing iTPN and varying only the supervision, and it shows consistent gains from the structural target over pixel reconstruction. The manuscript is also unusually transparent in its limitations section (V-B), acknowledging the synthetic-only perturbation evidence. The detailed appendix tables and planned code release are strengths. However, two load-bearing issues substantially reduce current confidence: the possible pre-training/evaluation overlap for ATRNet-STAR (and other newly added datasets), and the mismatch between the abstract's 'learned representation' drift claim and the actual measurement of fixed target-operator drift. The stability-transfer correlation is also weaker than the text suggests, being based on eight in-sample runs with an admitted counterexample.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV-A / Appendix B / Tables II, VII, XIX] The pre-training corpus includes ATRNet-STAR with 108,569 images (Table II, Appendix B), while the downstream classification benchmark and the stability-transfer analysis use the ATRNet-STAR SOC-50 split (Table VII, Fig. 5, Table XIX). The text states only that the original SARATR-X collection is 'test-excluded'; it never states that the three newly added datasets, especially ATRNet-STAR, have their evaluation splits removed from pre-training. If the SOC-50 test images are among the 108,569 pre-training images, the +3.5 accuracy gain (Table VII) and the Fig. 5/Table XIX correlation are circular and inflated. Please provide a file-level overlap analysis between the pre-training images and each downstream test split, for ATRNet-STAR and also for SSDD and HRSID, which appear in both Table II and Table III. If overlap exists, the pre-training and/or evaluation must be redone with clean split
  2. [Abstract / Section IV-D / Appendix D, Eqs. (16)–(19)] The abstract and conclusion claim that the proposed target 'reduces perturbation drift in the learned representation by nearly two orders of magnitude.' The experiments in Fig. 4 and Appendix D measure the mean ℓ1 drift of the fixed target operators (and raw pixel patches), not the drift of the learned encoder's representations. No experiment perturbs the input and measures the change in encoder output embeddings. The claim as stated is therefore unsupported. Please either measure representation drift directly (e.g., ℓ1/ℓ2 change in pooled encoder features before vs. after speckle perturbation across checkpoints) or revise the wording in the Abstract and Section VI to say 'target feature drift' rather than 'learned representation drift.'
  3. [Fig. 5 / Table XIX / Section IV-D] The stability–transfer correlation is computed over exactly the eight pre-training runs that generated the drift measurements, with n=8, and the text acknowledges a concrete inversion (S2 has far lower drift than pixel supervision but lower accuracy). The claim that the stability ranking 'strongly predicts' or 'essentially predicts' transfer ranking is an overstatement for such a small, in-sample, single-seed-per-target comparison. The correlation is dominated by the pixel point and one multi-scale point. Please either add more targets, multiple seeds with error bars, and a hold-out/out-of-sample evaluation, or soften the conclusion to 'suggestive, with exceptions' and quantify the uncertainty (e.g., bootstrap confidence intervals for ρ).
  4. [Section III-B / Section V-B / Appendix D] The 'physics-grounded stability' argument is presented heuristically: the authors state that blind-spot aggregation and directional log-ratio contrast 'cancel' multiplicative speckle, but no first-order stability derivation is provided for the actual operators, which include sigmoid compression and log-of-sum followed by subtraction. For non-unit-mean, correlated, or non-log-normal speckle — or when the two half-regions have different mean backscatter — the cancellation is only approximate. The paper itself confines the empirical evidence to synthetic log-normal speckle (Section V-B). Since the transfer advantage is attributed to this stability property, please add a short analytical derivation of the claimed approximate invariance under the stated model, or add a real SAR speckle-perturbation experiment (e.g., multi-look or repeat-pass data), or explicitly restrict the stability claim t
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix D] The text refers to 'Sec. X' ('differ only in the reconstruction target (Sec. X)') — this is a placeholder and should be replaced with the actual section number.
  2. [Fig. 3] The caption in the provided version contains an extended run of corrupted byte sequences ('/uni00000018/...'), making the figure caption unreadable. Please ensure the final PDF renders the caption correctly.
  3. [Appendix A, Eq. (13)] Eq. (13) duplicates Eq. (9) with slightly different notation. Please unify the two presentations or remove the duplication.
  4. [Appendix D] The stability protocol says 'held-out SAR images' but does not specify which dataset those images come from. Please state the source and confirm that these images are disjoint from pre-training, especially given the ATRNet-STAR overlap concern above.
  5. [Table XIX] The Spearman p-value is reported as p<0.001 for n=8; please report the exact p-value and clarify whether any multiple-comparison correction was applied. Also specify whether the linear-probe hyperparameters were tuned per target or fixed across targets.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

ATRNet-STAR evaluation images may be present in pre-training; the paper's only test-exclusion guarantee covers the original fourteen datasets, not the newly added ATRNet-STAR, making the headline benchmark and the stability–transfer correlation partially circular if overlap exists.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV-A 'Pre-training Data'; Table II; Table VII; Appendix B 'Pre-training Data Collection'; Appendix C 'Image Classification']
    "Following SARATR-X, we construct an expanded pre-training data collection in Table II by augmenting its test-excluded fourteen-dataset collection with three recently released open-source SAR datasets, namely ATRNet-STAR [3], FAIR-CSAR [37], and M4-SAR [38]. Pre-training uses only SAR imagery and does not rely on manual annotations."

    The test-exclusion guarantee is attached only to the original fourteen datasets; ATRNet-STAR is newly added in full (108,569 images, Table II) and is simultaneously the headline classification benchmark (SOC-50, Table VII, and the transfer axis in Fig. 5/Table XIX). Nowhere does the paper state that the SOC-50 evaluation images were removed from the 108,569 pre-training images. If they were not removed, the reported +3.5 gain on ATRNet-STAR and the Fig. 5/Table XIX stability–transfer correlation are computed on images the encoder was pre-trained on: the 'prediction' reduces to re-scoring pre-training data rather than transfer, and the correlation's transfer axis is statistically forced by training on the evaluation set. This is a load-bearing gap in the evaluation protocol, not an external

full rationale

The core derivation is largely self-contained. The target y is defined by fixed structural extractors and learnable fusion weights (Eq. 9), the loss is a standard masked L2 reconstruction (Eq. 12), and the ablation chain in Table IV compares pixel vs. structural targets under fixed frameworks with external downstream tasks (MSTAR-SOC, SSDD, AIR-PolSAR-Seg-2.0); none of these steps is defined in terms of the claimed outcome. Self-citations of SAR-JEPA/SARATR-X provide background, but the paper re-validates the 'structural target beats pixel' premise in its own ablations, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The abstract's 'drift in the learned representation' is actually measured on fixed target operators rather than trained encoders, and the stability–transfer correlation (Table XIX) is an in-sample Spearman over 8 runs with an admitted counterexample (S2); these are overclaims and weak evidence, but not circular reductions. The main circularity risk is the ATRNet-STAR overlap: the pre-training section only claims test-exclusion for the original fourteen datasets, while ATRNet-STAR is both pre-training data and the benchmark used for the headline classification gain and for the Fig. 5 stability–transfer analysis. If SOC-50 test images are among the 108,569 pre-training images, that portion of the central claim reduces to a fitted-input-called-prediction. Because 10 of 12 benchmarks and the ablation study remain external controls, the paper is only partially circular and conditionally so; score 5 reflects this partial, load-bearing gap.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; the two conditions (physics-grounded stability, semantic scale compatibility) are conceptual constructs, not entities. The central claim rests on the multiplicative-speckle physics assumption, the approximate invariance of the chosen operators, and the untested assumption that target stability transfers to encoder stability. The learnable fusion weights and hand-chosen radii are the main fitted inputs.

free parameters (2)
  • Cross-scale fusion weights {w_s} = alpha = (0.030, 0.008, 0.005, 0.024, 0.023, 0.909) at epoch 1200 (Appendix A)
    Six scalar logits fitted jointly with the encoder; the paper's claim that 'the optimization discovers which scales matter' is read off these fitted values from a single representative run.
  • Receptive-field radii r_s = blind-spot 3x3 plus r_s in {3, 5, 9, 13, 17}
    Chosen by hand as a geometric progression; no sensitivity analysis over alternative radius sets is provided, so the scale coverage is a design input, not a derived quantity.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Multiplicative speckle model x_i = s_i * n_i with unit-mean noise
    The entire physics-grounded stability argument (Eq. 1 and Section III-B) assumes pixel intensity factorizes into backscatter and unit-mean multiplicative noise; real SAR also has correlated speckle, additive noise, and radiometric errors.
  • domain assumption Log-ratio and blind-spot operators are approximately speckle-invariant
    The paper asserts 'first-order stability' for log(mean) of half-regions and blind-spot sums without formalizing the residual: the log of a sum of log-normals has a variance-dependent bias that cancels in the difference only when the two half-regions have similar statistics.
  • domain assumption Reconstructing a stable target makes the encoder's representations stable and transferable
    The bridge from target stability to representation quality is the central premise of the method; its direct evidence is the 8-point in-sample correlation in Fig. 5/Table XIX, which includes one counterexample (S2).
  • domain assumption iTPN encoder plus L2 reconstruction yields transferable features without auxiliary losses
    Standard SSL assumption adopted from iTPN [36] and the SAR-JEPA line; validated only through downstream transfer results, not by a direct analysis of learned representations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SARATR-X-v2: Scale-Aware Structural Pre-Training for SAR Foundation Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J5MQO7YX

@misc{pith2026260723238,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SARATR-X-v2: Scale-Aware Structural Pre-Training for SAR Foundation Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J5MQO7YX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.23238}
}
read the original abstract

Masked image modeling has become a dominant paradigm for SAR pre-training, yet the design of the reconstruction target remains fundamentally unsettled. This article argues that a SAR pre-training target should satisfy two conditions to produce transferable representations: (i) physics-grounded stability, i.e., approximate invariance of the target operator to multiplicative speckle inherent in coherent imaging; and (ii) semantic scale compatibility, i.e., coverage of the heterogeneous spatial scales that downstream tasks demand. These two conditions are individually achievable but jointly difficult: physics-grounded stability favors fixed operators, while semantic scale compatibility favors data-driven composition. To this end, SARATR-X-v2 reconciles both within a single design. The target is constructed through fixed structural extractors spanning six receptive fields, from blind-spot local aggregation to directional log-ratio region contrast, and fused via learnable weights into one unified supervision signal for masked reconstruction. On twelve SAR benchmarks across classification, detection, and segmentation, SARATR-X-v2 achieves state-of-the-art transfer performance. Under synthetic speckle variation, the proposed target reduces perturbation drift in the learned representation by nearly two orders of magnitude relative to pixel-space supervision. Taken together, these results establish physics-grounded stability and semantic scale compatibility as a principled framework for pre-training target design under coherent imaging, and suggest that effective SAR pre-training is not about reconstructing more signal, but about reconstructing the right structural target.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23238 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Perturbation-sensitive supervision and task￾scale mismatch limit SAR pre-training. Our framework addresses both through scale-aware structural pre￾training guided by physics-grounded stability and semantic scale compatibility. (a) SAR-specific perturbations destabilize pixel-space supervision, while downstream tasks require representations at different scales. (b) It constructs a fine￾to-coarse structural target and… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overall framework for SARATR-X-v2 with scale-aware structural pre-training. The framework is structured as two stages. The bottom stage constructs the pre-training target: fixed multi-scale structural extractors spanning six receptive fields produce scale-specific responses, which are fused through learnable cross-scale weights into a single target y. Every operator is designed to provide robustness against multipli… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comprehensive comparison of SARATR-X-v2 on twelve SAR benchmarks spanning classification, object detection, and semantic segmentation. The compared methods include representative SAR-specific models (e.g., SARATR-X [24], SARMAE [26], SARCLIP [63]), remote-sensing multi-modal framework (e.g., RingMoE [21], BabelRS [64], ViTP [65]), and task-specific methods tailored to individual benchmarks. Despite the diversity of … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Stability–transfer relationship across different pre￾training targets. Each point corresponds to one supervision target used for pre-training, including pixel reconstruction, six fixed single-scale targets (S1–S6), and the proposed multi￾scale fusion target. The horizo…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Stability of different target features against synthetic speckle perturbation. Mean ℓ1 difference between target features extracted from pairs of speckle realizations of the same input image, shown as a function of perturbation strength. The multiplicative speckle nois…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Residual correction visualization of multi-scale fusion. For each sample (row), we show from left to right: the input SAR image x; the feature map from the last (largest) scale branch f6; the fused target feature y; and the absolute residual map |y −f6|. All feature ma…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 7 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Spaceborne synthetic aperture radar imaging algorithms: An overview,

    G.-C. Sun, Y . Liu, J. Xiang, W. Liu, M. Xing, and J. Chen, “Spaceborne synthetic aperture radar imaging algorithms: An overview,” IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Mag. , vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 161–184, 2021

    2021

  2. [2]

    Deep learning meets SAR: Concepts, models, pitfalls, and perspectives,

    X. Zhu, S. Montazeri, M. Ali, Y . Hua, Y . Wang, L. Mou, Y . Shi, F. Xu, and R. Bamler, “Deep learning meets SAR: Concepts, models, pitfalls, and perspectives,” IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Mag. , vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 143–172, 2021

    2021

  3. [3]

    ATRNet-STAR: A large dataset and benchmark toward remote sensing object recognition in the wild,

    Y . Liu, W. Li, L. Liu, J. Zhou, B. Peng, Y . Song, X. Xiong, W. Yang, T. Liu, Z. Liu, and X. Li, “ATRNet-STAR: A large dataset and benchmark toward remote sensing object recognition in the wild,”IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 6735–6753, 2026

    2026

  4. [4]

    Advanced cognitive radar: Principles, systems, and essential applications,

    Y . Liu, W. Yang, X. Qiu, C. Yang, W. Jiang, F. Gini, and M. S. Greco, “Advanced cognitive radar: Principles, systems, and essential applications,” IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine , vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 68–81, 2026

    2026

  5. [5]

    Unpaired image deraining using reward-guided self-reinforcement strategy,

    Y . Chen, Y . Jin, X. Chen, Y . Wei, Z. Yan, and Y . Fu, “Unpaired image deraining using reward-guided self-reinforcement strategy,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2026, pp. 1342–1354. IN PREPARATION FOR SUBMISSION 14

    2026

  6. [6]

    Unleashing channel potential: Space-frequency selection convolution for SAR object detection,

    K. Li, D. Wang, Z. Hu, W. Zhu, S. Li, and Q. Wang, “Unleashing channel potential: Space-frequency selection convolution for SAR object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2024, pp. 17 323– 17 332

    2024

  7. [7]

    Dual information purification for lightweight SAR object detection,

    X. Yang, J. Sun, S. Duan, and D. Cheng, “Dual information purification for lightweight SAR object detection,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 39, no. 9, 2025, pp. 9274– 9282

    2025

  8. [8]

    A tutorial on synthetic aperture radar,

    A. Moreira, P. Prats-Iraola, M. Younis, G. Krieger, I. Hajnsek, and K. P. Papathanassiou, “A tutorial on synthetic aperture radar,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine , vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 6–43, 2013

    2013

Show all 107 references
  1. [9]

    Foundation models in remote sensing: Evolving from unimodality to multimodality,

    D. Hong, C. Li, X. Li, G. Camps-Valls, and J. Chanussot, “Foundation models in remote sensing: Evolving from unimodality to multimodality,”IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine, 2026

    2026

  2. [10]

    Vision foundation models in remote sensing: A survey,

    S. Lu, J. Guo, J. R. Zimmer-Dauphinee, J. M. Nieusma, X. Wang, P. VanValkenburgh, S. A. Wernke, and Y . Huo, “Vision foundation models in remote sensing: A survey,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 190–215, 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Self-supervised learning in remote sensing: A review,

    Y . Wang, C. M. Albrecht, N. A. A. Braham, L. Mou, and X. X. Zhu, “Self-supervised learning in remote sensing: A review,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine , vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 213– 247, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Robsense: A robust multi-modal foundation model for remote sensing with static, temporal, and incomplete data adaptability,

    M. K. Do, K. Han, P. Lai, K. T. Phan, and W. Xiang, “Robsense: A robust multi-modal foundation model for remote sensing with static, temporal, and incomplete data adaptability,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2025, ...

    2025

  5. [13]

    Crossearth: Geospatial vision foundation model for domain generalizable remote sensing semantic segmentation,

    Z. Gong, Z. Wei, D. Wang, X. Hu, X. Ma, H. Chen, Y . Jia, Y . Deng, Z. Ji, X. Zhu, X. Yang, N. Yokoya, J. Zhang, B. Du, J. Yan, and L. Zhang, “Crossearth: Geospatial vision foundation model for domain generalizable remote sensing semantic segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Pa...

    2026

  6. [14]

    A genealogy of foundation models in remote sensing,

    K. Lane and M. Karimzadeh, “A genealogy of foundation models in remote sensing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.17177 , 2025

    2025

  7. [15]

    A tutorial on speckle reduction in synthetic aperture radar images,

    F. Argenti, A. Lapini, T. Bianchi, and L. Alparone, “A tutorial on speckle reduction in synthetic aperture radar images,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine , vol. 1, no. 3, p. 6–35, 2013

    2013

  8. [16]

    DiffDet4SAR: Diffusion-based aircraft target detection network for SAR images,

    J. Zhou, C. Xiao, B. Peng, Z. Liu, L. Liu, Y . Liu, and X. Li, “DiffDet4SAR: Diffusion-based aircraft target detection network for SAR images,” IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. , 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Discovering and explaining the noncausality of deep learning in SAR ATR,

    W. Li, W. Yang, L. Liu, W. Zhang, and Y . Liu, “Discovering and explaining the noncausality of deep learning in SAR ATR,” IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. , vol. 20, pp. 1–5, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Hierarchical disentanglement-alignment network for robust SAR vehicle recognition,

    W. Li, W. Yang, W. Zhang, T. Liu, Y . Liu, and L. Liu, “Hierarchical disentanglement-alignment network for robust SAR vehicle recognition,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. , vol. 16, pp. 9661–9679, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    MaRS: A multi-modality very-high-resolution remote sensing foundation model with cross-granularity meta-modality learning,

    R. Yang, Y . Liu, H. Yan, Y . Zhou, Y . Fu, H. Luo, and Y . Zhong, “MaRS: A multi-modality very-high-resolution remote sensing foundation model with cross-granularity meta-modality learning,” in AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2026

    2026

  12. [20]

    SkySense V2: A unified foundation model for multi-modal remote sensing,

    Y . Zhang, L. Ru, K. Wu, L. Yu, L. Liang, Y . Li, and J. Chen, “SkySense V2: A unified foundation model for multi-modal remote sensing,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), October 2025, pp. 9136–9146

    2025

  13. [21]

    RingMoE: Mixture-of-modality-experts multi-modal foundation models for universal remote sensing image interpretation,

    H. Bi, Y . Feng, B. Tong, M. Wang, H. Yu, Y . Mao, H. Chang, W. Diao, P. Wang, Y . Yu, H. Peng, Y . Zhang, K. Fu, and X. Sun, “RingMoE: Mixture-of-modality-experts multi-modal foundation models for universal remote sensing image interpretation,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern An...

    2026

  14. [22]

    FUSAR-KLIP: Towards multimodal foundation models for remote sensing,

    Y . Yang, X. Zhang, Q. Fang, J. Liu, Z. Ye, R. Li, L. Liu, and H. Wang, “FUSAR-KLIP: Towards multimodal foundation models for remote sensing,” arXiv preprint , 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.23927

    2025

  15. [23]

    Predicting gradient is better: Exploring self-supervised learning for SAR ATR with a joint-embedding predictive architecture,

    W. Li, W. Yang, T. Liu, Y . Hou, Y . Li, Z. Liu, Y . Liu, and L. Liu, “Predicting gradient is better: Exploring self-supervised learning for SAR ATR with a joint-embedding predictive architecture,” ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. , vol. 218, pp. 326–338, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    SARATR-X: Toward building a foundation model for SAR target recognition,

    W. Li, W. Yang, Y . Hou, L. Liu, Y . Liu, and X. Li, “SARATR-X: Toward building a foundation model for SAR target recognition,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 34, pp. 869–884, 2025

    2025

  17. [25]

    SUMMIT: A SAR foundation model with multiple auxiliary tasks enhanced intrinsic characteristics,

    Y . Du, Y . Chen, L. Huang, Y . Yang, P. Ghamisi, and Q. Du, “SUMMIT: A SAR foundation model with multiple auxiliary tasks enhanced intrinsic characteristics,” International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation , vol. 141, p. 104624, 2025

    2025

  18. [26]

    SARMAE: Masked autoencoder for sar representation learning,

    D. Liu, D. Wang, H. Wang, H. Chen, W. Jiang, Y . Cheng, H. Guo, W. Cui, and J. Zhang, “SARMAE: Masked autoencoder for sar representation learning,” arXiv preprint , 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.16635

    2025

  19. [27]

    Croma: Remote sensing representations with contrastive radar-optical masked autoencoders,

    A. Fuller, K. Millard, and J. Green, “Croma: Remote sensing representations with contrastive radar-optical masked autoencoders,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, pp. 5506– 5538, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Anysat: One earth observation model for many resolutions, scales, and modalities,

    G. Astruc, N. Gonthier, C. Mallet, and L. Landrieu, “Anysat: One earth observation model for many resolutions, scales, and modalities,” in Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, 2025, pp. 19 530–19 540

    2025

  21. [29]

    CrossEarth- SAR: A SAR-centric and billion-scale geospatial foundation model for domain generalizable semantic segmentation,

    Z. Ye, Z. Gong, N. Liao, X. Hu, D. Wang, H. Chen, C. Huang, Y . He, Y . Jia, X. Wang, H. Wang, X. Yang, and J. Yan, “CrossEarth- SAR: A SAR-centric and billion-scale geospatial foundation model for domain generalizable semantic segmentation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.12008, 2026

    2026

  22. [30]

    SAMBA: A scatter-guided masked bidirectional mamba foundation model for SAR target recognition,

    K. Wang, X. Pan, Z. Gu, X. Ai, Z. Xu, F. Zhao, and S. Xiao, “SAMBA: A scatter-guided masked bidirectional mamba foundation model for SAR target recognition,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.31668 , 2026

    2026 arXiv

  23. [31]

    A complex-valued SAR foundation model based on physically inspired representation learning,

    M. Wang, H. Bi, Y . Feng, L. Xin, S. Gong, T. Wang, Z. Yan, P. Wang, W. Diao, and X. Sun, “A complex-valued SAR foundation model based on physically inspired representation learning,” arXiv preprint,

  24. [32]

    A statistical and geometrical edge detector for SAR images,

    R. Touzi, A. Lopes, and P. Bousquet, “A statistical and geometrical edge detector for SAR images,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. , vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 764–773, 1988

    1988

  25. [33]

    On detecting edges in speckle imagery,

    A. C. Bovik, “On detecting edges in speckle imagery,” IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Signal Process. , vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 1618–1627, 1988

    1988

  26. [34]

    SAR target recognition via supervised discriminative dictionary learning and sparse representation of the SAR-HOG feature,

    S. Song, B. Xu, and J. Yang, “SAR target recognition via supervised discriminative dictionary learning and sparse representation of the SAR-HOG feature,” Remote Sens., vol. 8, no. 8, p. 683, 2016

    2016

  27. [35]

    SAR- SIFT: a SIFT-like algorithm for SAR images,

    F. Dellinger, J. Delon, Y . Gousseau, J. Michel, and F. Tupin, “SAR- SIFT: a SIFT-like algorithm for SAR images,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 453–466, 2014

    2014

  28. [36]

    Integrally pre-trained transformer pyramid networks,

    Y . Tian, L. Xie, Z. Wang, L. Wei, X. Zhang, J. Jiao, Y . Wang, Q. Tian, and Q. Ye, “Integrally pre-trained transformer pyramid networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 18 610–18 620

    2023

  29. [37]

    Fair-csar: A benchmark dataset for fine-grained object detection and recognition based on single-look complex sar images,

    Y . Wu, Y . Suo, Q. Meng, W. Dai, T. Miao, W. Zhao, Z. Yan, W. Diao, G. Xie, Q. Ke, Y . Zhao, K. Fu, and X. Sun, “Fair-csar: A benchmark dataset for fine-grained object detection and recognition based on single-look complex sar images,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remo...

    2025

  30. [38]

    M4-sar: A multi-resolution, multi-polarization, multi-scene, multi-source dataset and benchmark for optical-sar fusion object detection,

    C. Wang, W. Lu, X. Li, J. Yang, and L. Luo, “M4-sar: A multi-resolution, multi-polarization, multi-scene, multi-source dataset and benchmark for optical-sar fusion object detection,” arXiv preprint,

  31. [39]

    CRTransSar: A visual transformer based on contextual joint representation learning for SAR ship detection,

    R. Xia, J. Chen, Z. Huang, H. Wan, B. Wu, L. Sun, B. Yao, H. Xiang, and M. Xing, “CRTransSar: A visual transformer based on contextual joint representation learning for SAR ship detection,” Remote Sens. , vol. 14, no. 6, p. 1488, 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.10931

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.10931

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    Category- oriented localization distillation for SAR object detection and a unified benchmark,

    C. Wang, R. Ruan, Z. Zhao, C. Li, and J. Tang, “Category- oriented localization distillation for SAR object detection and a unified benchmark,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. , vol. 61, pp. 1–14, 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    Large-scale multi-class SAR image target detection dataset-1.0,

    J. Chen, Z. Huang, R. Xia, B. Wu, L. Sheng, L. Sun, and B. Yao, “Large-scale multi-class SAR image target detection dataset-1.0,” https: //radars.ac.cn/web/data/getData?dataType=MSAR, 2022

    2022

  35. [43]

    Synthetic SAR image generation using sensor, terrain and target models,

    A. Kusk, A. Abulaitijiang, and J. Dall, “Synthetic SAR image generation using sensor, terrain and target models,” in Proc. Eur. Conf. Synth. Aperture Radar, EUSAR 2016 . VDE, 2016, pp. 1–5

    2016

  36. [44]

    Improving SAR automatic target recognition models with transfer learning from simulated data,

    D. Malmgren-Hansen, A. Kusk, J. Dall, A. A. Nielsen, R. Engholm, and H. Skriver, “Improving SAR automatic target recognition models with transfer learning from simulated data,” IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett., vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 1484–1488, 2017

    2017

  37. [45]

    A SAR dataset for ATR development: the synthetic and measured paired labeled experiment (SAMPLE),

    B. Lewis, T. Scarnati, E. Sudkamp, J. Nehrbass, S. Rosencrantz, and E. Zelnio, “A SAR dataset for ATR development: the synthetic and measured paired labeled experiment (SAMPLE),” in Proc. SPIE Conf. Algorithms SAR Imagery , vol. 10987, 2019, pp. 39–54

    2019

  38. [46]

    The air force moving and stationary target recognition database,

    Air Force Research Laboratory, “The air force moving and stationary target recognition database,” https://www.sdms.afrl.af.mil/index.php? collection=mstar

  39. [47]

    SIVED: A SAR image dataset for vehicle detection based on rotatable bounding box,

    X. Lin, B. Zhang, F. Wu, C. Wang, Y . Yang, and H. Chen, “SIVED: A SAR image dataset for vehicle detection based on rotatable bounding box,” Remote Sens., vol. 15, no. 11, p. 2825, 2023

    2023

  40. [48]

    Complex SAR data,

    Sandia National Laboratories, “Complex SAR data,” https://www. sandia.gov/radar/complex-data/index.html. IN PREPARATION FOR SUBMISSION 15

  41. [49]

    OpenSARShip 2.0: A large-volume dataset for deeper interpretation of ship targets in Sentinel-1 imagery,

    B. Li, B. Liu, L. Huang, W. Guo, Z. Zhang, and W. Yu, “OpenSARShip 2.0: A large-volume dataset for deeper interpretation of ship targets in Sentinel-1 imagery,” inProc. SAR Big Data Era: Models Methods Appl. (BIGSARDATA), 2017, pp. 1–5

    2017

  42. [50]

    A SAR dataset of ship detection for deep learning under complex backgrounds,

    Y . Wang, C. Wang, H. Zhang, Y . Dong, and S. Wei, “A SAR dataset of ship detection for deep learning under complex backgrounds,” Remote Sens., vol. 11, no. 7, p. 765, 2019

    2019

  43. [51]

    SAR ship detection dataset (SSDD): Official release and comprehensive data analysis,

    T. Zhang, X. Zhang, J. Li, X. Xu, B. Wang, X. Zhan, Y . Xu, X. Ke, T. Zeng, H. Su et al. , “SAR ship detection dataset (SSDD): Official release and comprehensive data analysis,”Remote Sens., vol. 13, no. 18, p. 3690, 2021

    2021

  44. [52]

    HRSID: A high-resolution SAR images dataset for ship detection and instance segmentation,

    S. Wei, X. Zeng, Q. Qu, M. Wang, H. Su, and J. Shi, “HRSID: A high-resolution SAR images dataset for ship detection and instance segmentation,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 120 234–120 254, 2020

    2020

  45. [53]

    SAR- AIRcraft-1.0: High-resolution SAR aircraft detection and recognition dataset (in chinese),

    Z. Wang, Y . Kang, X. Zeng, Y . Wang, T. Zhang, and X. Sun, “SAR- AIRcraft-1.0: High-resolution SAR aircraft detection and recognition dataset (in chinese),” J. Radars, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 906–922, 2023

    2023

  46. [54]

    AIR- SARShip-1.0: High-resolution SAR ship detection dataset,

    X. Sun, Z. Wang, Y . Sun, W. Diao, Y . Zhang, and K. Fu, “AIR- SARShip-1.0: High-resolution SAR ship detection dataset,” J. Radars, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 852–862, 2019

    2019

  47. [55]

    Moving and stationary target acquisition and recognition (MSTAR) model-based automatic target recognition: Search technology for a robust ATR,

    J. R. Diemunsch and J. Wissinger, “Moving and stationary target acquisition and recognition (MSTAR) model-based automatic target recognition: Search technology for a robust ATR,” in Proc. 5th SPIE Conf. Algorithms SAR Imagery , vol. 3370, 1998, pp. 481–492

    1998

  48. [56]

    SEFEPNet: Scale expansion and feature enhancement pyramid network for SAR aircraft detection with small sample dataset,

    P. Zhang, H. Xu, T. Tian, P. Gao, L. Li, T. Zhao, N. Zhang, and J. Tian, “SEFEPNet: Scale expansion and feature enhancement pyramid network for SAR aircraft detection with small sample dataset,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. , vol. 15, pp. 3365–3375, 2022

    2022

  49. [57]

    SARDet-100K: Towards open-source benchmark and toolkit for large- scale SAR object detection,

    Y . Li, X. Li, W. Li, Q. Hou, L. Liu, M.-M. Cheng, and J. Yang, “SARDet-100K: Towards open-source benchmark and toolkit for large- scale SAR object detection,” in Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. (NeurIPS), 2024

    2024

  50. [58]

    FUSAR-Ship: Building a high-resolution SAR-AIS matchup dataset of Gaofen-3 for ship detection and recognition,

    X. Hou, W. Ao, Q. Song, J. Lai, H. Wang, and F. Xu, “FUSAR-Ship: Building a high-resolution SAR-AIS matchup dataset of Gaofen-3 for ship detection and recognition,” Sci. China Inf. Sci. , vol. 63, pp. 1–19, 2020

    2020

  51. [59]

    Air-polsar-seg-2.0: Polarimetric sar ground terrain classification dataset for large-scale complex scenes,

    W. Zhirui, Z. Liangjin, W. Yuelei, Z. Xuan, K. Jian, Y . Jian, and S. Xian, “Air-polsar-seg-2.0: Polarimetric sar ground terrain classification dataset for large-scale complex scenes,” Journal of Radars, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 353–365, 2025

    2025

  52. [60]

    RSAR: Restricted state angle resolver and rotated sar benchmark,

    X. Zhang, X. Yang, Y . Li, J. Yang, M.-M. Cheng, and X. Li, “RSAR: Restricted state angle resolver and rotated sar benchmark,” in Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, 2025, pp. 7416–7426

    2025

  53. [61]

    A dual-stream high resolution network: Deep fusion of gf-2 and gf- 3 data for land cover classification,

    B. Ren, S. Ma, B. Hou, D. Hong, J. Chanussot, J. Wang, and L. Jiao, “A dual-stream high resolution network: Deep fusion of gf-2 and gf- 3 data for land cover classification,” International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation , vol. 112, p. 102896, 2022

    2022

  54. [62]

    OpenEarthMap-SAR: A benchmark synthetic aperture radar dataset for global high-resolution land cover mapping [software and data sets],

    J. Xia, H. Chen, C. Broni-Bediako, Y . Wei, J. Song, and N. Yokoya, “OpenEarthMap-SAR: A benchmark synthetic aperture radar dataset for global high-resolution land cover mapping [software and data sets],” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine , vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 476–487, 2025

    2025

  55. [63]

    SARVLM: A vision language foundation model for semantic understanding and target recognition in SAR imagery,

    Q. Ma, Z. Wang, W. Liu, X. Lu, B. Deng, P. Duan, X. Kang, and S. Li, “SARVLM: A vision language foundation model for semantic understanding and target recognition in SAR imagery,” arXiv preprint,

  56. [64]

    MCANet: A joint semantic segmentation framework of optical and SAR images for land use classification,

    X. Li, G. Zhang, H. Cui, S. Hou, S. Wang, X. Li, Y . Chen, Z. Li, and L. Zhang, “MCANet: A joint semantic segmentation framework of optical and SAR images for land use classification,” International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation , vol. 106, p. 102638, 2022

    2022

  57. [65]

    Visual instruction pretraining for domain-specific foundation models,

    Y . Li, Y . Zhang, W. Tang, Y . Dai, M.-M. Cheng, X. Li, and J. Yang, “Visual instruction pretraining for domain-specific foundation models,” arXiv preprint , 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.17562

    2025

  58. [66]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.22665

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.22665

    arXiv

  59. [67]

    Unifying heterogeneous multi-modal remote sensing detection via language- pivoted pretraining,

    Y . Li, Y . Chen, Y . Li, M.-M. Cheng, X. Li, and J. Yang, “Unifying heterogeneous multi-modal remote sensing detection via language- pivoted pretraining,” in Int. Conf. Machin. Learn. (ICML) , 2026

    2026

  60. [68]

    A ConvNet for the 2020s,

    Z. Liu, H. Mao, C.-Y . Wu, C. Feichtenhofer, T. Darrell, and S. Xie, “A ConvNet for the 2020s,” in Proc. IEEE Comput. Soc. Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. (CVPR) , 2022, pp. 11 976–11 986

    2022

  61. [69]

    On the status of foundation models for SAR imagery,

    N. Inkawhich, “On the status of foundation models for SAR imagery,” arXiv preprint , 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509. 21722

    2025

  62. [70]

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

    A. Dosovitskiy, L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, D. Weissenborn, X. Zhai, T. Unterthiner, M. Dehghani, M. Minderer, G. Heigold, S. Gelly et al. , “An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,” arXiv preprint , 2020. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org...

    2020 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Semi-supervised SAR ATR via epoch- and uncertainty-aware pseudo-label exploitation,

    X. Zhang, Y . Luo, and L. Hu, “Semi-supervised SAR ATR via epoch- and uncertainty-aware pseudo-label exploitation,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 61, pp. 1–15, 2023

    2023

  64. [72]

    Weakly contrastive learning via batch instance discrimination and feature clustering for small sample SAR ATR,

    Y . Zhai, W. Zhou, B. Sun, J. Li, Q. Ke, Z. Ying, J. Gan, C. Mai, R. D. Labati, V . Piuri, and F. Scotti, “Weakly contrastive learning via batch instance discrimination and feature clustering for small sample SAR ATR,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. , vol. 60, pp. 1–17, 2022

    2022

  65. [73]

    Crucial feature capture and discrimination for limited training data SAR ATR,

    C. Wang, S. Luo, J. Pei, Y . Huang, Y . Zhang, and J. Yang, “Crucial feature capture and discrimination for limited training data SAR ATR,” ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. , vol. 204, pp. 291–305, 2023

    2023

  66. [74]

    RS5M and GeoRSCLIP: A large-scale vision-language dataset and a large vision-language model for remote sensing,

    Z. Zhang, T. Zhao, Y . Guo, and J. Yin, “RS5M and GeoRSCLIP: A large-scale vision-language dataset and a large vision-language model for remote sensing,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 62, pp. 1–23, 2024

    2024

  67. [75]

    Optimal azimuth angle selection for limited SAR vehicle target recognition,

    L. Zhang, X. Leng, S. Feng, X. Ma, K. Ji, G. Kuang, and L. Liu, “Optimal azimuth angle selection for limited SAR vehicle target recognition,” Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. , vol. 128, p. 103707, 2024

    2024

  68. [76]

    Reproducible scaling laws for contrastive language-image learning,

    M. Cherti, R. Beaumont, R. Wightman, M. Wortsman, G. Ilharco, C. Gordon, C. Schuhmann, L. Schmidt, and J. Jitsev, “Reproducible scaling laws for contrastive language-image learning,” in CVPR, 2023, pp. 2818–2829

    2023

  69. [77]

    Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows,

    Z. Liu, Y . Lin, Y . Cao, H. Hu, Y . Wei, Z. Zhang, S. Lin, and B. Guo, “Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows,” in Proc. IEEE Comput. Soc. Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. (CVPR), 2021, pp. 10 012–10 022

    2021

  70. [78]

    Remoteclip: A vision language foundation model for remote sensing,

    F. Liu, D. Chen, Z. Guan, X. Zhou, J. Zhu, Q. Ye, L. Fu, and J. Zhou, “Remoteclip: A vision language foundation model for remote sensing,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 62, pp. 1– 16, 2024

    2024

  71. [79]

    SAR target classification based on multiscale attention super-class network,

    D. Wang, Y . Song, J. Huang, D. An, and L. Chen, “SAR target classification based on multiscale attention super-class network,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. , vol. 15, pp. 9004–9019, 2022

    2022

  72. [80]

    Gsdet: Gaussian splatting for oriented object detection,

    Z. Ding, J. Zhao, Y . Zhou, W.-l. Du, H. Zhu, and R. Yao, “Gsdet: Gaussian splatting for oriented object detection,” in Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2025, pp. 900–908

    2025

  73. [81]

    BEiT: BERT pre-training of image transformers,

    H. Bao, L. Dong, S. Piao, and F. Wei, “BEiT: BERT pre-training of image transformers,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Learn. Represent. (ICLR) , 2021

    2021

  74. [82]

    Orientedformer: An end-to-end transformer-based oriented object detector in remote sensing images,

    J. Zhao, Z. Ding, Y . Zhou, H. Zhu, W.-L. Du, R. Yao, and A. El Saddik, “Orientedformer: An end-to-end transformer-based oriented object detector in remote sensing images,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 62, pp. 1–16, 2024

    2024

  75. [83]

    CSnnet: A remote sensing detection network breaking the second-order limitation of transformers with recursive convolutions,

    C. Chen, W. Zeng, X. Zhang, and Y . Zhou, “ CSnnet: A remote sensing detection network breaking the second-order limitation of transformers with recursive convolutions,”IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 61, pp. 1–15, 2023

    2023

  76. [84]

    Real-time oriented object detection transformer in remote sensing images,

    Z. Ding, Y . Zhou, J. Zhao, W.-L. Du, X. Li, R. Yao, and A. El Saddik, “Real-time oriented object detection transformer in remote sensing images,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2026

    2026

  77. [85]

    Feature enhancement pyramid and shallow feature reconstruction network for SAR ship detection,

    L. Bai, C. Yao, Z. Ye, D. Xue, X. Lin, and M. Hui, “Feature enhancement pyramid and shallow feature reconstruction network for SAR ship detection,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. , vol. 16, pp. 1042–1056, 2023

    2023

  78. [86]

    Faster and lighter: A novel ship detector for sar images,

    C. Tian, D. Liu, F. Xue, Z. Lv, and X. Wu, “Faster and lighter: A novel ship detector for sar images,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, vol. 21, pp. 1–5, 2024

    2024

  79. [87]

    Hrle-sardet: A lightweight sar target detection algorithm based on hybrid representation learning enhancement,

    Z. Zhou, J. Chen, Z. Huang, J. Lv, J. Song, H. Luo, B. Wu, Y . Li, and P. S. R. Diniz, “Hrle-sardet: A lightweight sar target detection algorithm based on hybrid representation learning enhancement,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 61, pp. 1–22, 2023

    2023

  80. [88]

    Multitask learning for sar ship detection with gaussian-mask joint segmentation,

    M. Zhao, X. Zhang, and A. Kaup, “Multitask learning for sar ship detection with gaussian-mask joint segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 61, pp. 1–16, 2023

    2023

  81. [89]

    Encoder-decoder with atrous separable convolution for semantic image segmentation,

    L.-C. Chen, Y . Zhu, G. Papandreou, F. Schroff, and H. Adam, “Encoder-decoder with atrous separable convolution for semantic image segmentation,” in Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , 2018, pp. 833–851

    2018

  82. [90]

    Hgm: A general high-order spatial and spectral global feature fusion module IN PREPARATION FOR SUBMISSION 16 for visual multitasking,

    C. Chen, X. Zhang, Y . Zhou, Y . Chang, and W. Zeng, “Hgm: A general high-order spatial and spectral global feature fusion module IN PREPARATION FOR SUBMISSION 16 for visual multitasking,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing , vol. ...

    2024

  83. [91]

    Pyramid scene parsing network,

    H. Zhao, J. Shi, X. Qi, X. Wang, and J. Jia, “Pyramid scene parsing network,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2017, pp. 6230–6239

    2017

  84. [92]

    TerraSegNet: Bilateral axial attention network for remote sensing image segmentation in diverse environmental monitoring applications,

    B. S. Wijaya, R. Munir, and N. P. Utama, “TerraSegNet: Bilateral axial attention network for remote sensing image segmentation in diverse environmental monitoring applications,” IEEE Access , vol. 13, pp. 208 868–208 901, 2025

    2025

  85. [93]

    PointRend: Image segmentation as rendering,

    A. Kirillov, Y . Wu, K. He, and R. Girshick, “PointRend: Image segmentation as rendering,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2020, pp. 9796–9805

    2020

  86. [94]

    Dual attention network for scene segmentation,

    J. Fu, J. Liu, H. Tian, Y . Li, Y . Bao, Z. Fang, and H. Lu, “Dual attention network for scene segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2019, pp. 3141–3149

    2019

  87. [95]

    VMamba: Visual state space model,

    Y . Liu, Y . Tian, Y . Zhao, H. Yu, L. Xie, Y . Wang, Q. Ye, and Y . Liu, “VMamba: Visual state space model,” arXiv preprint, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.10166

    2024 arXiv

  88. [96]

    U-Net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, “U-Net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Med. Image Comput. Comput.-Assisted Intervention. (MICCAI) , 2015, pp. 234–241

    2015

  89. [97]

    SegFormer: Simple and efficient design for semantic segmentation with transformers,

    E. Xie, W. Wang, Z. Yu, A. Anandkumar, J. M. Alvarez, and P. Luo, “SegFormer: Simple and efficient design for semantic segmentation with transformers,” arXiv preprint , 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.15203

    2021 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Masked-attention mask transformer for universal image segmentation,

    B. Cheng, I. Misra, A. G. Schwing, A. Kirillov, and R. Girdhar, “Masked-attention mask transformer for universal image segmentation,” in Proc. IEEE/CVF Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit., 2022, pp. 1280–1289

    2022

  91. [99]

    Object-contextual representations for semantic segmentation,

    Y . Yuan, X. Chen, and J. Wang, “Object-contextual representations for semantic segmentation,” in Proc. Eur. Conf. Comput. Vis. , 2020, pp. 173–190

    2020

  92. [100]

    Rethinking semantic segmentation from a sequence-to-sequence perspective with transformers,

    S. Zheng, J. Lu, H. Zhao, X. Zhu, Z. Luo, Y . Wang, Y . Fu, J. Feng, T. Xiang, P. H. S. Torr, and L. Zhang, “Rethinking semantic segmentation from a sequence-to-sequence perspective with transformers,” in Proc. IEEE/CVF Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit., 2021, pp. 6881–6890

    2021

  93. [102]

    PIDNet: a real-time semantic segmentation network inspired by PID controllers,

    J. Xu, Z. Xiong, and S. P. Bhattacharyya, “PIDNet: a real-time semantic segmentation network inspired by PID controllers,” in Proc. IEEE/CVF Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. , 2023, pp. 19 529–19 539

    2023

  94. [103]

    TransUNet: rethinking the U-Net architecture design for medical image segmentation through the lens of transformers,

    J. Chen, J. Mei, X. Li, Y . Lu, Q. Yu, Q. Wei, X. Luo, Y . Xie, E. Adeli, Y . Wang, M. P. Lungren, S. Zhang, L. Xing, L. Lu, A. L. Yuille, and Y . Zhou, “TransUNet: rethinking the U-Net architecture design for medical image segmentation through the lens of transformers,” Med. ...

    2024

  95. [104]

    During pre-training, we use only the SAR imagery from all datasets and do not rely on any explicit manual annotations

    with three newly incorporated open-source datasets, namely M4-SAR [38], FAIR-CSAR [37], and ATRNet-STAR [3]. During pre-training, we use only the SAR imagery from all datasets and do not rely on any explicit manual annotations. The resulting pre-training data cover 17 SAR data...

  96. [105]

    further complements the pre-training data from the SAR scene-diversity perspective by introducing a multi- resolution, multi-scene, and multi-source benchmark, thus broadening the range of object layouts and environmental contexts encountered during pre-training. Taken togethe...

    2025

  97. [106]

    The best and second-best results are highlighted in bold and underline , respectively

    with oriented bounding boxes (OBB). The best and second-best results are highlighted in bold and underline , respectively. Method Year Backbone mAP mAP@50 mAP@75 OrientedFormer [79] 2024 ResNet-50 37.5 69.8 35.7 GSDet [80] 2025 ResNet-50 35.6 68.0 33.5 SARMAE [26] 2025 ViT-L -...

    2024

  98. [107]

    The best and second-best results are highlighted in bold and underline , respectively

    with horizontal bounding boxes (HBB). The best and second-best results are highlighted in bold and underline , respectively. Method Year Backbone mAP mAP@50 mAP@75 FEPS-Net [82] 2023 ResNet-50 59.9 96.0 67.5 CSnNet [83] 2023 CSPDarkNet-53 64.9 97.1 - SARATR-X [24] 2025 HiViT-B...

    2023

  99. [2025]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.11999

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.11999

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.