Scalable Data Transmission Framework for Earth Observation Satellites with Channel Adaptation

Israel Leyva-Mayorga; Petar Popovski; Shashi Raj Pandey; Van-Phuc Bui

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 19 references

Scalable Data Transmission Framework for Earth Observation Satellites with Channel Adaptation

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

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a satellite can transmit only the most-changed pixels and still deliver high-quality Earth images by adapting to predicted link capacity.

desk verdict Sensible new combination of change detection and capacity-aware pixel selection for EO downlink, but the evaluation as written doesn't yet support the PSNR claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11857 v1 pith:BKXYLCLZ submitted 2024-12-16 eess.SP

Van-Phuc Bui , Shashi Raj Pandey , Israel Leyva-Mayorga , Petar Popovski This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SP

keywords Earthobservationsatellitessemanticcommunicationchangedetectionchannelcapacitypredictionmulti-spectralimagingDVB-S2pixelselectionLEOsatellitedownlink

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proposes a downlink framework for Earth observation satellites that predicts the available link capacity for each orbital pass and uses it to decide which multi-spectral pixels to transmit. Instead of sending whole images, the satellite sends only pixels flagged as changed by a neural change detector, ranked by a change score and selected under the predicted capacity constraint. The authors claim this keeps delivered image quality close to full transmission while greatly reducing data volume, and they verify it on the OSCD dataset with a simulated DVB-S2 satellite link. The motivation is that downlink bandwidth, not sensing, is the bottleneck for modern Earth observation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the change-score map $\bar{s}_{ij}$ produced by Change-Net: a per-pixel probability $p(s_{ij}=1|\tilde{x}^{t_1}_{ij},\theta_{\text{model}})$ that a pixel has changed between the reference and new image. The paper combines this map with a predicted orbit capacity $C_{\text{orbit}} = \sum_{k=1}^N R_k \Delta t_k$, where $R_k$ is the DVB-S2 data rate for the SNR in interval $k$ of the pass. Ranking changed pixels by their change probability and selecting the top-ranked ones until the bit budget is spent converts the PSNR optimization into a knapsack-style selection that can run onboard.

What would settle it

Fix a concrete reconstruction rule (e.g., replace unselected pixels with the reference image values), then compare the PSNR of the paper's change-score selection against the oracle selection that sorts pixels by true squared error at the same data budget; if the change-score ranking is clearly worse than the oracle, the proxy assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that semantic prioritization can be coupled with channel prediction to make satellite image downlink adaptive to fluctuating link conditions. Concretely, it defines an ideal problem of choosing pixels to maximize reconstructed-image PSNR under a capacity constraint (P1), declares that infeasible online, and replaces it with a tractable proxy (P2): maximize the sum of per-pixel change scores, with only changed pixels eligible and total bits limited by the predicted orbit capacity $C_{\text{orbit}}$. Change scores come from Change-Net, a U-Net-style encoder-decoder trained for change detection, and the capacity is computed from the satellite's visibility window and DVB-S2 rate steps. On the Onera Satellite Change Detection dataset the method reports PSNR rising from about 24 dB at a 0.6 encoding rate to about 34 dB at 0.99, with the random-selection baseline roughly 2 dB lower at the same transmitted data volume.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that transmitting pixels with the largest change scores is a faithful proxy for maximizing the PSNR of the reconstructed image, and it never defines or evaluates the reconstruction procedure that would justify this equivalence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A single orbital pass can be planned around the exact DVB-S2 rate profile, so transmission volume adapts automatically to the satellite's elevation and noise conditions.
Because only changed pixels are sent, repeated captures of the same region avoid redundant transmission of static background.
At a fixed data budget, selecting by change score yields better reconstructed quality than random pixel selection, which is the comparison shown in Fig. 5.
The same framework can be extended to other rate-limited downlink scenarios where only part of an image is semantically relevant.

Reading between the lines

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

The proxy assumption could be tested by fixing a reconstruction rule on the ground and comparing change-score selection with an oracle that sorts pixels by true squared error; the paper leaves the reconstruction step unspecified.
The framework's utility is tied to change detection accuracy; a missed change is never transmitted, so applications like disaster mapping may care more about recall on changed regions than about average PSNR.
The capacity prediction could be replaced by a learned link model, since the SNR trajectory is geometric and predictable; that would make the selection rule work even without explicit DVB-S2 parameters.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The core idea here is reasonable: take the authors' earlier change-detection-based semantic encoding, add predicted orbit capacity from DVB-S2 rate tables, and greedily pick the highest-scoring changed pixels to fit the downlink budget. That exact combination is new, and the system model is assembled cleanly. The visibility-duration and link-budget math are standard but correct, and using OSCD with a U-Net change detector is a solid choice.

What the paper does not do is demonstrate its central quality claim. The only quantitative comparison, Fig. 5, contradicts its own text. The text says the baseline 'consistently lags by around 2 dB,' but at encoding rate 0.8 the numbers shown are proposed 22.9 dB and baseline 24.86 dB, meaning the baseline is ahead. The same sentence promises a PSNR increase from 24 dB at 0.6 to 34 dB at 0.99, yet 22.9 dB at 0.8 sits below both. This looks like a plotting or reporting error, but it is the sole quantitative evidence for the method's benefit, and it is not a minor typo.

The deeper problem is the proxy from change score to PSNR. In Eq. 12, p_ij is a U-Net change probability, not the magnitude of radiometric change. The paper asserts that maximizing the sum of these probabilities maximizes PSNR because changed pixels dominate reconstruction error. That may be true, but it is not shown. The reconstruction procedure for \hat X_{t1} is never defined, so PSNR is not computable from the text and the proxy cannot be checked. An empirical comparison against actual PSNR for different selection rules would settle this; the paper does not provide one.

A third issue: the threshold tau is 'experimentally determined through an iterative process using captured images and orbit capacity.' That sounds a lot like tuning on the test set. There are no error bars, no code, and no training details for Change-Net beyond a reference to a known structure. The abstract and contributions also overclaim that channel capacity prediction is deep learning; in the paper it is computed from geometry and DVB-S2 tables, not learned. That is a minor overstatement, but it should be fixed.

Credit where due: the problem formulation P2 is coherent, the greedy ranking is a natural heuristic, and the link budget is correctly assembled. I suspect the central idea is directionally right, but this version does not make a reproducible or self-consistent case. The paper deserves a serious referee, but only after the authors fix Fig. 5, define the reconstruction, and validate the proxy. If I were the editor, I would send it to review and ask for major revision, not desk reject.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an adaptive downlink framework for multispectral Earth-observation images. A U-Net-based Change-Net generates per-pixel change scores from a pair of registered images; the framework ranks changed pixels by these scores and selects the highest-ranked pixels subject to an orbit-capacity constraint derived from a DVB-S2 link model. The selected pixels are transmitted to the ground station, where the image is reconstructed; experiments on the OSCD dataset with a simulated LEO link report PSNR versus a random-selection baseline at different change encoding rates. The central claim is that the proposed selection achieves high-quality delivery at substantially reduced data volume.

Significance. If substantiated, the framework would be a useful integration of semantic change detection with capacity-aware downlink scheduling for LEO Earth observation, going beyond prior work [5] by adapting the transmitted pixel set to the predicted per-pass capacity. The paper has several strengths: the channel model uses explicit physics and the DVB-S2 rate table; the optimization in P2 is a well-posed knapsack-type problem; and the evaluation uses a public dataset (OSCD). However, the current manuscript does not yet demonstrate the central quality claim: the proxy from change scores to PSNR is asserted rather than derived or validated, the reconstruction procedure is unspecified, and the reported numerical evidence for the main comparison is internally inconsistent. These issues are load-bearing; hence the contribution, while plausible, should be accepted only after substantive revision.

major comments (5)

[Section II.B, Eq. (9a), Eq. (12)] The claim that 'maximizing PSNR involves prioritizing the transmission of pixels with the greatest changes in value' is asserted without a derivation, and it cannot be evaluated because the reconstruction rule for Xhat_t1 is never specified. PSNR depends on how unselected pixels are filled in; without this rule, the PSNR values reported in Fig. 5 are not reproducible. In addition, the importance score p_ij in Eq. (9a) is defined in Eq. (12) as the Change-Net probability p(s_ij=1 | x_tilde_ij^t1, theta_model), which is a classifier confidence, not the radiometric change magnitude that dominates reconstruction error under any natural reconstruction. A pixel with high change probability can have a small radiometric difference and vice versa. Please either specify the reconstruction and prove or empirically validate the proxy, or replace p_ij with an explicit estimator of per-pixel reconstruction-error reduction.
[Section IV, Fig. 5] The text and the reported numbers contradict each other. The text says the proposed method 'achieves a steep PSNR increase from 24 dB at 0.6 accuracy to 34 dB at 0.99, while the baseline consistently lags by around 2 dB,' but the immediately following example gives 22.9 dB for the proposed and 24.86 dB for the baseline at a change encoding rate of 0.8. That is a 1.96 dB deficit for the proposed method, not a 2 dB lead. Also, 22.9 dB at 0.8 is inconsistent with a monotone 'steep increase' starting at 24 dB. The figure and the text must be reconciled; as written, the quantitative evidence contradicts the abstract's high-quality-delivery claim.
[Section III.2, Eq. (13), and Section IV] The change-score threshold tau is described as 'experimentally determined through an iterative process using captured images and orbit capacity,' but the paper does not describe a validation split or procedure. If tau is selected using the same test images on which the PSNR comparison is reported, the evaluation is not independent and the comparison against the random baseline is biased in favor of the proposed method. Please specify how tau is chosen and use a separate validation partition.
[Section IV, Fig. 5] The baseline is described only as 'randomly selects pixels using the same selected data volume.' It is not stated whether the baseline selects uniformly among the same eligible set of changed pixels. If the baseline draws from the whole image while the proposed method is restricted to changed pixels, the comparison conflates the benefit of change selection with the benefit of importance ranking. State the baseline's sampling distribution explicitly and, for a fair comparison, restrict both methods to the same candidate set.
[Section III.2 and III.3] Equation (13) defines sp_ij as a binary thresholded score, yet Section III.3 says MPs are 'ranked by their scores sp_ij.' Binary scores cannot be ranked meaningfully. If ranking is actually performed on the continuous output s_bar_ij, then Eq. (13) is not the score used for ranking; if thresholding is applied before ranking, the greedy procedure does not solve P2 as stated. Please clarify the selection procedure and align the notation.

minor comments (4)

[Section III.1] The z-score normalization is written as (x - mu)/sigma^2; z-score normalization should divide by the standard deviation sigma, not the variance. Please correct the formula.
[Eq. (12)] The function xi is called Log Softmax, but p(s_ij=1 | ...) is described as a probability in [0,1]. Log-softmax outputs are log-probabilities and are not in [0,1]; use softmax or define the score as the exponentiated log-probability.
[Proof of Remark 1, Eq. (3)] The expression T_pass = 2(R_Earth+h)/v_orb * 2 beta appears to contain an extra factor of 2; the final result in Eq. (2) is consistent with T_pass = 2(R_Earth+h) beta / v_orb. Please fix the intermediate formula.
[Fig. 2] The y-axis label in the extracted figure reads 'Distance from the gateway to NGEO (km)' while the caption and text describe achievable data rates; please relabel the axes as data rate versus time or elevation angle.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the PSNR/capacity evaluation is externally grounded, with only minor self-citation and a threshold-calibration overlap.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is not circular. The orbit capacity Corbit is computed from standard geometry, the DVB-S2 rate table, and the link equation (Eqs. 4-7), all of which are external to the method. The pixel importance score is produced by a U-Net trained on the OSCD dataset (Eqs. 10-12), an external benchmark, and the final PSNR is measured against the original image, an external quality metric. The replacement of the PSNR objective by the surrogate P2 (Eq. 9) is an unproved proxy assumption, and the reconstruction rule for \hat X_{t1} is never specified; these are correctness/rigor gaps, not circular reductions. The self-citation [5] is used only as motivation and architecture inspiration alongside the external U-Net [15], so it is not load-bearing. The threshold tau in Eq. (13) is 'experimentally determined through an iterative process using captured images and orbit capacity,' which creates a mild evaluation overlap with Fig. 5, but because tau is fit to the capacity constraint rather than to the PSNR values, the central comparison is not forced by construction. The numerical inconsistency in Fig. 5 (22.9 dB proposed vs 24.86 dB baseline at rate 0.8) is a reporting error, not evidence of circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the proxy from change scores to PSNR, the accuracy of the learned change detector, the assumed link model, and the unstated reconstruction procedure. The main tunable free parameter is the change-score threshold tau, which is fitted to satisfy the capacity constraint and therefore partly determines the reported data-volume reduction. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)

Change-score threshold tau = not reported
In Eq. (13), pixels are selected as changed when their score exceeds tau. Section III.2 states that tau is 'experimentally determined through an iterative process using captured images and orbit capacity to satisfy constraint (9c)'. This threshold directly controls the amount and quality of transmitted data.
Number of selected spectral bands N = 4 (RGB + NIR)
Section III.1 states that a subset of N bands is selected 'based on their relevance to detection of changes'. The experiments use 4-band input, a design choice that affects the change detector and hence the reported results.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Satellite-to-ground link is AWGN with free-space path loss, no buffering, and periodic image arrivals aligned with the visibility window.
Section II.A defines the system model this way. If real channels have fading, interference, or buffering, the capacity estimate and the matching of data volume to capacity could fail.
domain assumption Input images are coregistered, radiometrically normalized, and cloud-free, and the OSCD change labels reflect true changes.
Section III.1 preprocesses images and mentions cloud removal. The change detector is trained on OSCD labels; in real operation, clouds, misregistration, and illumination changes could break the pixel-level change map.
ad hoc to paper Maximizing the sum of selected change scores approximates maximizing reconstructed PSNR.
Section II.B states this without proof: 'From the PSNR formula, maximizing PSNR involves prioritizing the transmission of pixels with the greatest changes in value.' The entire selection algorithm rests on this proxy.
domain assumption The receiver can reconstruct the new image from the previous reference image plus the selected changed pixels.
The PSNR evaluation in Section IV implicitly assumes this reconstruction, but no reconstruction algorithm or bitstream format is specified in the paper.
standard math Orbital geometry, free-space path loss, and DVB-S2 rate tables correctly model the satellite link.
Equations (1), (2), (4), and (5) use standard formulas and the DVB-S2 standard. These are accepted background knowledge, not introduced by this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scalable Data Transmission Framework for Earth Observation Satellites with Channel Adaptation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BKXYLCLZ

@misc{pith2026241211857,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scalable Data Transmission Framework for Earth Observation Satellites with Channel Adaptation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BKXYLCLZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11857}
}

read the original abstract

The immense volume of data generated by Earth observation (EO) satellites presents significant challenges in transmitting it to Earth over rate-limited satellite-to-ground communication links. This paper presents an efficient downlink framework for multi-spectral satellite images, leveraging adaptive transmission techniques based on pixel importance and link capacity. By integrating semantic communication principles, the framework prioritizes critical information, such as changed multi-spectral pixels, to optimize data transmission. The process involves preprocessing, assessing pixel importance to encode only significant changes, and dynamically adjusting transmissions to match channel conditions. Experimental results on the real dataset and simulated link demonstrate that the proposed approach ensures high-quality data delivery while significantly reducing number of transmitted data, making it highly suitable for satellite-based EO applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11857 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The system model. window while adhering to periodic arrival constraints. The time available for data transmission is determined by the satellite’s visibility duration with respect to the GS. 1) Visibility Duration: The visibility duration, T pass, represents the maximum time during which a satellite remains visible to a ground station and can transmit data. This duration is determined by the satellite’s orbital alt… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Achievable data rates for satellite-to-ground commu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Visualization of reference and change detection maps across change encoding rates. (a) The reference image displayed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Achievable data rates for satellite-to-ground commu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Impact of change encoding rate on data volume and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[5]

Semantic image encoding and communication for Earth observation with LEO satellites,

V .-P. Bui, T. Q. Dinh, I. Leyva-Mayorga, S. R. Pandey, E. Lagunas, and P. Popovski, “Semantic image encoding and communication for Earth observation with LEO satellites,” IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking , pp. 1–1, 2024

work page 2024
[1]

Remote sensing, natural hazards and the contribution of ESA sentinels missions,

D. Poursanidis and N. Chrysoulakis, “Remote sensing, natural hazards and the contribution of ESA sentinels missions,” Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment , vol. 6, pp. 25–38, 2017

work page 2017
[2]

Emerging technologies for 6G non-terrestrial- networks: From academia to industrial applications,

C. T. Nguyen et al. , “Emerging technologies for 6G non-terrestrial- networks: From academia to industrial applications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07763, 2024

arXiv 2024
[3]

Sentinel-2 operations

ESA. Sentinel-2 operations. Accessed: 17 Feb. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Operations/Sentinel- 2_operations

work page 2023
[4]

Ongoing developments of future payload data processing platforms at ESA,

R. Trautner and R. Vitulli, “Ongoing developments of future payload data processing platforms at ESA,” in Proc. OBPDC, 2010

work page 2010
[6]

Change detection from remotely sensed images: From pixel-based to object-based approaches,

M. Hussain et al. , “Change detection from remotely sensed images: From pixel-based to object-based approaches,” ISPRS J. Photogram. Remote Sens. , vol. 80, pp. 91–106, 2013

work page 2013
[7]

Learning to compare image patches via convolutional neural networks,

S. Zagoruyko and N. Komodakis, “Learning to compare image patches via convolutional neural networks,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit., 2015, pp. 4353–4361

work page 2015
[8]

Multi-resource coordinate scheduling for Earth obser- vation in space information networks,

Y . Wang et al. , “Multi-resource coordinate scheduling for Earth obser- vation in space information networks,” IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun. , vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 268–279, 2018

work page 2018

Show all 19 references

[9]

Optimal dynamic multi-resource management in Earth observation oriented space information networks,

Y . Wang et al., “Optimal dynamic multi-resource management in Earth observation oriented space information networks,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.12717

2019 arXiv
[10]

Satellite-and cache- assisted uav: A joint cache placement, resource allocation, and trajectory optimization for 6G aerial networks,

D.-H. Tran, S. Chatzinotas, and B. Ottersten, “Satellite-and cache- assisted uav: A joint cache placement, resource allocation, and trajectory optimization for 6G aerial networks,” IEEE Open J. V eh. Technol. , vol. 3, pp. 40–54, 2022

2022
[11]

Security-reliability tradeoffs for satellite–terrestrial relay networks with a friendly jammer and imperfect CSI,

T. N. Nguyen et al., “Security-reliability tradeoffs for satellite–terrestrial relay networks with a friendly jammer and imperfect CSI,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. , vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 7004–7019, 2023

2023
[12]

GETNET: a general end-to-end 2-D CNN framework for hyperspectral image change detection,

Q. Wang et al. , “GETNET: a general end-to-end 2-D CNN framework for hyperspectral image change detection,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 3–13, 2019

2019
[13]

G. D. Gordon and W. L. Morgan, Principles of Communication Satel- lites. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1993

1993
[14]

DVB-S2: The second generation standard for satellite broad-band services,

A. Morello and V . Mignone, “DVB-S2: The second generation standard for satellite broad-band services,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 210– 227, 2006

2006
[15]

U-net: Convolutional net- works for biomedical image segmentation,

O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, “U-net: Convolutional net- works for biomedical image segmentation,” in Int. Conf. Med. Image Comput. Comput.-Assist. Interv. Springer, 2015, pp. 234–241

2015
[16]

Multitask learning for large-scale semantic change detection,

R. C. Daudt et al. , “Multitask learning for large-scale semantic change detection,” Comput. Vis. Image Underst.. , vol. 187, p. 102783, 2019

2019
[17]

OSCD - Onera satellite change detection,

R. Caye Daudt et al. , “OSCD - Onera satellite change detection,”
[18]

Urban change detection for multispectral earth observation using convolutional neural networks,

R. C. Daudt et al. , “Urban change detection for multispectral earth observation using convolutional neural networks,” in Proc. IGARSS . IEEE, 2018, pp. 2115–2118

2018
[2019]

Available: https://dx.doi.org/10.21227/asqe-7s69

[Online]. Available: https://dx.doi.org/10.21227/asqe-7s69

doi

Pith tools

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

[1] [5]

Semantic image encoding and communication for Earth observation with LEO satellites,

V .-P. Bui, T. Q. Dinh, I. Leyva-Mayorga, S. R. Pandey, E. Lagunas, and P. Popovski, “Semantic image encoding and communication for Earth observation with LEO satellites,” IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking , pp. 1–1, 2024

work page 2024

[2] [1]

Remote sensing, natural hazards and the contribution of ESA sentinels missions,

D. Poursanidis and N. Chrysoulakis, “Remote sensing, natural hazards and the contribution of ESA sentinels missions,” Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment , vol. 6, pp. 25–38, 2017

work page 2017

[3] [2]

Emerging technologies for 6G non-terrestrial- networks: From academia to industrial applications,

C. T. Nguyen et al. , “Emerging technologies for 6G non-terrestrial- networks: From academia to industrial applications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07763, 2024

arXiv 2024

[4] [3]

Sentinel-2 operations

ESA. Sentinel-2 operations. Accessed: 17 Feb. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Operations/Sentinel- 2_operations

work page 2023

[5] [4]

Ongoing developments of future payload data processing platforms at ESA,

R. Trautner and R. Vitulli, “Ongoing developments of future payload data processing platforms at ESA,” in Proc. OBPDC, 2010

work page 2010

[6] [6]

Change detection from remotely sensed images: From pixel-based to object-based approaches,

M. Hussain et al. , “Change detection from remotely sensed images: From pixel-based to object-based approaches,” ISPRS J. Photogram. Remote Sens. , vol. 80, pp. 91–106, 2013

work page 2013

[7] [7]

Learning to compare image patches via convolutional neural networks,

S. Zagoruyko and N. Komodakis, “Learning to compare image patches via convolutional neural networks,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit., 2015, pp. 4353–4361

work page 2015

[8] [8]

Multi-resource coordinate scheduling for Earth obser- vation in space information networks,

Y . Wang et al. , “Multi-resource coordinate scheduling for Earth obser- vation in space information networks,” IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun. , vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 268–279, 2018

work page 2018