Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Wavelet-Assisted Multi-Frequency Attention Network for Pansharpening

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Pansharpening improves when wavelet transforms cleanly separate image frequencies and attention recombines them with physically meaningful roles, giving top reported scores on three satellite datasets.

desk verdict A solid, incremental pansharpening architecture with a new wavelet-attention fusion design and careful ablations; the SOTA margins are plausible but lack the repeated-seed evidence to be fully trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04903 v1 pith:CTTDZMKN submitted 2025-02-07 eess.IV cs.AIcs.CV

Jie Huang , Rui Huang , Jinghao Xu , Siran Pen , Yule Duan , Liangjian Deng This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.AIcs.CV
keywords pansharpeningwavelettransformmulti-frequencyattentionfrequency-domainfusionremotesensingimagemulti-scalemechanism
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

Pansharpening is the task of fusing a sharp but spectrally poor panchromatic (PAN) image with a low-resolution multispectral (LRMS) image to produce a high-resolution multispectral image. This paper argues that the fusion is best done in the frequency domain, and that previous frequency-domain attempts fail because neural networks smear high- and low-frequency content together. The proposed network, WFANet, uses the discrete wavelet transform (DWT) to split features into four clean frequency sub-bands that reconstruct losslessly, then fuses them with an attention mechanism whose query, key, and value are given distinct physical meanings — frequency, spatial, and fused spectral-spatial content. On three satellite datasets (WV3, QB, GF2) the paper reports the best reduced-resolution PSNR, SAM, ERGAS, and Q4/Q8 scores, with PSNR gains of 0.228, 0.334, and 0.417 dB over the previous second-best methods, and the best full-resolution HQNR on WV3 and GF2. If correct, the result is that wavelet-based frequency separation plus physically meaningful attention is a stronger recipe for pansharpening than the existing spatial or naive frequency-domain baselines.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the discrete wavelet transform (DWT) paired with an attention triplet. DWT is a fixed, invertible linear transform that separates an image into four sub-bands — low-frequency (LL) and high-frequency in three directions (LH, HL, HH) — and IDWT reconstructs the original losslessly, so information is never discarded when moving between spatial and frequency representations. Multi-Frequency Fusion Attention (MFFA) converts these sub-bands into a Frequency Attention Triplet: Frequency-Query $Q_i$ is the sub-band itself, Spatial-Key $K$ is the low-frequency component $P_{LL}$, and Fusion-Value $V$ is the convolution of the LRMS feature with $P_{LL}$; the attention map $S_i = \mathrm{softmax}(Q_i \otimes K)$ then selectively mixes the fused value back into each frequency channel before IDWT. Repeating DWT on the low-frequency branch builds a wavelet pyramid, letting the network fuse at multiple scales. The argument of the paper is that because DWT separates frequencies cleanly and the triplet assigns each attention role a physical meaning, the network avoids the frequency confusion and information loss it attributes to prior spatial and frequency-domain methods.

What would settle it

Run WFANet and the current second-best method (CANNet, according to Table 1) on the same WV3/QB/GF2 reduced-resolution splits with at least five independent training runs each, computing mean and standard deviation of PSNR; if the standard deviations overlap across methods or the margin shrinks below one standard deviation, the state-of-the-art claim is not supported. A cheaper check is to evaluate both published models on the larger full reduced-resolution test sets available in the benchmark rather than the 20-sample subset used in the paper.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core claim is that pansharpening quality is gated by how cleanly frequency information is separated and recombined, and that wavelets provide exactly that clean separation. The authors construct Multi-Frequency Fusion Attention (MFFA), which applies DWT to the PAN feature, uses each sub-band as a Frequency-Query, the low-frequency sub-band as the Spatial-Key, and a convolution of the LRMS feature with the low-frequency sub-band as the Fusion-Value; attention re-weights the fusion value per frequency and IDWT reconstructs the image losslessly. A companion module, SDEM, enhances spatial detail separately in each frequency band using linear layers, and repeated DWT builds a two-scale wavelet pyramid so fusion progresses from coarse to fine scales. The paper reports state-of-the-art quantitative results on three datasets under the standard reduced-resolution evaluation protocol, with the largest PSNR margin on GF2 (0.417 dB), and backs this with ablations showing each design choice — the triplet roles, the attention over convolution, SDEM, the multi-scale pyramid, and the linear Frequency Adaptation Blocks — contributes to the final score.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the differences the paper reports against prior methods — 0.228 to 0.417 dB of PSNR — are real effects rather than noise, because they are measured on just 20 reduced-resolution samples per dataset and a single training run per method.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On the reduced-resolution WV3, QB, and GF2 benchmarks, WFANet reports the top PSNR, SAM, ERGAS, and Q4/Q8 values, improving PSNR over the second-best method by 0.228 dB, 0.334 dB, and 0.417 dB respectively.
  • On full-resolution images, the network also reports the best HQNR on both WV3 and GF2, which the paper reads as evidence that the frequency-aware design generalizes to real-world scenes where no ground truth exists.
  • The ablation study ties each architectural choice to a measurable gain: removing any single role in the Frequency Attention Triplet drops PSNR on WV3 by 0.19 to 0.46 dB, and replacing MFFA with a convolutional fusion block costs 0.86 dB.
  • A lightweight variant with 0.07 million parameters retains competitive performance, suggesting the frequency-attention design does not require a large model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because DWT is a fixed, invertible transform independent of the fusion task, the same Frequency Attention Triplet could in principle be transplanted to other fusion problems — hyperspectral pansharpening, multispectral and hyperspectral image fusion, or single-image super-resolution — where separating high-frequency detail from low-frequency structure matters.
  • The reported margins of 0.2 to 0.4 dB come from 20 reduced-resolution test samples per dataset with no error bars; until WFANet is re-run across multiple seeds and on the full test pool, part of the gap between it and the second-best methods could be run-to-run variance rather than a true architectural advantage.
  • The paper's argument that linear layers are better than convolutions for high-frequency sub-bands is supported by a single FAB versus convolution-block comparison; testing other frequency-adaptive nonlinearities would clarify whether the benefit comes from linearity or from separating the sub-bands before processing.
  • If the physical-role assignment (frequency query, spatial key, fusion value) is the real driver, then reordering the roles should change performance systematically; the supplementary's six-permutation comparison already shows the paper's assignment wins, which suggests a testable hypothesis for why that ordering is best.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes WFANet, a wavelet-assisted multi-frequency attention network for pansharpening. The method decomposes panchromatic features with the discrete wavelet transform (DWT), constructs a Frequency Attention Triplet (Frequency-Query, Spatial-Key, Fusion-Value) with assigned physical meanings, and adds a Spatial Detail Enhancement Module (SDEM) using linear-layer Frequency Adaptation Blocks (FABs). The network is trained in a multi-scale progressive framework with an ℓ1 loss. Experiments on the WV3, QB, and GF2 datasets from the PanCollection benchmark report state-of-the-art reduced-resolution and full-resolution results, with claimed PSNR improvements over the second-best method of 0.228 dB, 0.334 dB, and 0.417 dB, respectively. The paper also includes ablation studies, parameter-number comparisons, and a released code repository.

Significance. If the reported gains are reproducible, WFANet is a competitive and well-motivated architecture for frequency-domain pansharpening. The design is described with sufficient detail to be reimplemented, the code is public, and the comparison set includes both traditional and recent deep-learning baselines. The paper's main contribution is empirical rather than theoretical; the Frequency Attention Triplet is a reasonable attention variant, and the ablations attempt to justify each design choice. However, the central claim of state-of-the-art performance rests entirely on single-run evaluations with no error bars, which is a load-bearing weakness given the small test sets and the magnitude of the claimed margins.

major comments (2)
  1. [Table 1; Section 'Comparison with State-of-the-Art Methods'] The central claim of state-of-the-art performance rests on a single training run per method and only 20 reduced-resolution test samples per dataset, with no error bars or statistical significance tests. The reported margins over the second-best method are 0.228 dB (WV3), 0.334 dB (QB), and 0.417 dB (GF2). These margins are of the same order as typical seed-to-seed PSNR variation in deep-learning pansharpening with small test sets, so the current evidence cannot distinguish a true improvement from training noise. Please report the mean and standard deviation over at least three independent training runs for the proposed method and the closest competitors, or provide a paired-seed comparison; bootstrap confidence intervals over test samples would also help.
  2. [Tables 3, 4, and 6; Section 'Ablation Study'] The ablation tables that justify each component of the design (Frequency-Query, Spatial-Key, Fusion-Value, MFFA, SDEM, Multi-Scale, FAB) are likewise based on single runs. For example, replacing FAB with a Convolution Block changes PSNR from 39.345 to 39.074 in Table 4, but without variance estimates this difference cannot be distinguished from training noise. Since the physical-significance argument and the claimed contribution of each component depend on these ablations, please provide repeated-seed results or error bars for at least the key ablations.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Spatial Detail Enhancement Module and Ablation Study] The text cites 'Fig. 9' for the FAB-versus-Convolution-Block comparison, but Figure 9 in the main text is a different figure; the correct reference is Figure 5. The same citation error appears in the Ablation Study section where 'Fig. 9 shows two network architectures for the SDEM.'
  2. [Ablation Study] The main text repeatedly refers to 'Table 10' for the MFFA, SDEM, Multi-Scale, and FAB ablations, but only Tables 3 and 4 appear in the main text; Table 10 is in the supplementary material. Please correct the cross-references.
  3. [Introduction] There is a missing space after the period in '...called WFANet, with the core component being the Multi-Frequency Fusion Attention (MFFA).In our proposed MFFA'; it should read 'MFFA. In our proposed MFFA'.
  4. [Figure 1] The caption contains a typo: 'Frequeny decomposition' should be 'Frequency decomposition'.
  5. [Equation (10)] The loss function notation is clear but slightly compressed; please define explicitly that \hat{M}^{(i)} and I^{(i)} denote the i-th reconstructed and ground-truth images, respectively, to avoid ambiguity.
  6. [Network Framework and Loss] The sentence 'limited by the dataset, we use two scales in this paper' is vague; please specify how the number of scales is determined for each dataset and whether the two-scale choice was an empirical decision or a limitation of the input sizes.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: WFANet is an empirical architecture paper whose SOTA claim is tested on external PanCollection benchmarks, and no prediction reduces to a fitted input or to a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper makes no first-principles derivation whose conclusion is equivalent to its input by construction. The central claim is that the proposed WFANet outperforms existing methods on three datasets, and this claim is supported by quantitative comparisons (Table 1, Table 2, Table 7) and ablations (Tables 3, 4, 6, 10) on external benchmark data. The DWT/IDWT 'lossless reconstruction' property is a standard mathematical fact cited to Mallat (1989) and Fujieda et al. (2018), not a result derived from the proposed network. The Frequency Attention Triplet is a design choice: Query, Key, and Value are defined in Eqs. (2)-(4) with explicit frequency-domain inputs, and the ablations test alternative definitions rather than assuming the chosen one. The paper does not fit a parameter to a subset of data and then rename that fit as a prediction; all reported numbers are obtained by training on the standard reduced-resolution training sets and evaluating on held-out test samples. The self-citations that appear, such as the PanCollection benchmark (Deng et al. 2022), FusionNet (Deng et al. 2021), U2Net (Peng et al. 2023), and CANNet (Duan et al. 2024), are used as external comparison methods or as a public benchmark repository; they are not invoked as an authority to forbid alternatives or to justify the core architectural choice. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The evaluation does lack error bars and uses only 20 reduced-resolution test samples per dataset, but that is a statistical robustness concern, not a circularity concern. Therefore no load-bearing step in the paper reduces to its own inputs, and the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central claim is empirical SOTA performance, not a mathematical derivation. All components are validated through ablations on a single dataset (WV3). The main external grounding is public benchmark data; no first-principles constraints or physical constants are involved. Hyperparameters are standard and do not constitute fitted scientific parameters in the sense of a derivation.

free parameters (4)
  • Channel size C = 32 (WFANet), 24 (WFANet-L)
    The hidden feature dimension used throughout the network; chosen by hand and varied in the lightweight variant.
  • Number of wavelet pyramid scales N = 2
    The paper states 'limited by the dataset, we use two scales in this paper'; this choice affects the multi-scale fusion.
  • Learning rate = 9e-4, halved every 90 epochs
    Training schedule, a standard hyperparameter, not derived from data.
  • Training epochs and batch size = 360 epochs, batch size 32
    Standard training configuration.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math DWT and IDWT are lossless and provide perfect reconstruction.
    Invoked in Eqs. 1, 5, 7 and supplemental Eqs. 11-15; the method relies on exact recovery after frequency decomposition.
  • domain assumption Wald protocol produces valid ground truth for reduced-resolution evaluation.
    Used to generate training and test pairs from real satellite images; standard in the field.
  • domain assumption Feature-space frequency separation after convolutions preserves the physical frequency semantics needed for fusion.
    The design assumes DWT on learned PAN features yields components that can be meaningfully treated as low and high frequency; not proven theoretically.
  • ad hoc to paper Linear layers (FABs) adapt better to frequency domains than convolution blocks.
    Used to justify SDEM design with support from ablation comparison, but based on a general prior claim about CNNs and high-frequency information.
  • ad hoc to paper The assigned roles in the Frequency Attention Triplet are optimal.
    The authors test all permutations in supplemental Table 6 and find their assignment best, but this is an empirical choice, not derived from first principles.
invented entities (3)
  • Frequency Attention Triplet (Frequency-Query, Spatial-Key, Fusion-Value) independent evidence
    purpose: A conceptual decomposition of attention roles by frequency content, intended to fuse spectral and spatial information more precisely.
    Ablation experiments (Tables 3 and 6) show that replacing or permuting these roles reduces performance, providing evidence inside the paper.
  • MFFA module independent evidence
    purpose: Core fusion module combining wavelet decomposition and attention-driven reconstruction.
    Ablation Table 4 removes MFFA and performance drops; module is validated by controlled experiments.
  • SDEM with Frequency Adaptation Blocks (FABs) independent evidence
    purpose: Spatial detail enhancement using linear-sigmoid blocks in each frequency subband.
    Ablation replacing FABs with convolution blocks lowers PSNR; evidence is internal to the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Wavelet-Assisted Multi-Frequency Attention Network for Pansharpening." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CTTDZMKN

@misc{pith2026250204903,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Wavelet-Assisted Multi-Frequency Attention Network for Pansharpening},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CTTDZMKN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04903}
}
read the original abstract

Pansharpening aims to combine a high-resolution panchromatic (PAN) image with a low-resolution multispectral (LRMS) image to produce a high-resolution multispectral (HRMS) image. Although pansharpening in the frequency domain offers clear advantages, most existing methods either continue to operate solely in the spatial domain or fail to fully exploit the benefits of the frequency domain. To address this issue, we innovatively propose Multi-Frequency Fusion Attention (MFFA), which leverages wavelet transforms to cleanly separate frequencies and enable lossless reconstruction across different frequency domains. Then, we generate Frequency-Query, Spatial-Key, and Fusion-Value based on the physical meanings represented by different features, which enables a more effective capture of specific information in the frequency domain. Additionally, we focus on the preservation of frequency features across different operations. On a broader level, our network employs a wavelet pyramid to progressively fuse information across multiple scales. Compared to previous frequency domain approaches, our network better prevents confusion and loss of different frequency features during the fusion process. Quantitative and qualitative experiments on multiple datasets demonstrate that our method outperforms existing approaches and shows significant generalization capabilities for real-world scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04903 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The comparison covers four methods across two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) DWT decomposes the image into four dif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The overall workflow of our WFANet. Our network processes the data using multiple scales (only two scales are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The MFFA workflow involves two phases. First, in the FATG phase, the Frequency Attention Triplet with specific [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of two network architectures for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The visual results (Top) and residuals (Bottom) of all compared approaches on the WV3 reduced-resolution dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The visual results (Top) and residuals (Bottom) of all compared approaches on the GF2 reduced-resolution dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The explanation of the multi-scale processing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Trade-off between parameter numbers and PSNR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The visual results (Top) and residuals (Bottom) of all compared approaches on the QB reduced-resolution dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The visual results (Top) and HQNR maps (Bottom) of all compared approaches on the WV3 full-resolution dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The visual results (Top) and HQNR maps (Bottom) of all compared approaches on the GF2 full-resolution dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.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. SWIFT: A General Sensitive Weight Identification Framework for Fast Sensor-Transfer Pansharpening

    cs.CV 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    SWIFT adapts pre-trained pansharpening models to new sensors in about one minute for most models by sampling 3% of target data and updating roughly 30% of weights, matching full retraining performance.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Arienzo, A.; Vivone, G.; Garzelli, A.; Alparone, L.; and Chanussot, J. 2022. Full-Resolution Quality Assessment of Pansharpening: Theoretical and hands-on approaches. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine, 10(3): 168–201

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Boardman, J. W. 1993. Automating spectral unmixing of AVIRIS data using convex geometry concepts. In JPL, Summaries of the 4th Annual JPL Airborne Geoscience Workshop. Volume 1: AVIRIS Workshop

    work page 1993

  5. [5]

    Deng, L.-J.; Vivone, G.; Jin, C.; and Chanussot, J. 2021. Detail Injection-Based Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Pansharpening. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 6995–7010

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    E.; Scarpa, G.; He, J.; Zhang, Y.; Chanussot, J.; and Plaza, A

    Deng, L.-J.; Vivone, G.; Paoletti, M. E.; Scarpa, G.; He, J.; Zhang, Y.; Chanussot, J.; and Plaza, A. 2022. Machine learning in pansharpening: A benchmark, from shallow to deep networks. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine, 10(3): 279--315

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Deng, S.-Q.; Deng, L.-J.; Wu, X.; Ran, R.; and Wen, R. 2023. Bidirectional Dilation Transformer for Multispectral and Hyperspectral Image Fusion. International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Duan, Y.; Wu, X.; Deng, H.; and Deng, L.-J. 2024. Content-Adaptive Non-Local Convolution for Remote Sensing Pansharpening. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 27738--27747

    work page 2024

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Fujieda, S.; Takayama, K.; and Hachisuka, T. 2018. Wavelet convolutional neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.08620

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Garzelli, A.; and Nencini, F. 2009. Hypercomplex Quality Assessment of Multi/Hyperspectral Images. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 662–665

    2009

  3. [11]

    He, L.; Rao, Y.; Li, J.; Chanussot, J.; Plaza, A.; Zhu, J.; and Li, B. 2019. Pansharpening via Detail Injection Based Convolutional Neural Networks. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 1188–1204

    2019

  4. [12]

    He, X.; Cao, K.; Yan, K.; Li, R.; Xie, C.; Zhang, J.; and Zhou, M. 2024 a . Pan-mamba: Effective pan-sharpening with state space model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12192

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    He, X.; Yan, K.; Li, R.; Xie, C.; Zhang, J.; and Zhou, M. 2024 b . Frequency-Adaptive Pan-Sharpening with Mixture of Experts. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, 2121--2129

    2024

  6. [14]

    Hou, J.; Cao, Q.; Ran, R.; Liu, C.; Li, J.; and Deng, L.-j. 2023. Bidomain modeling paradigm for pansharpening. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 347--357

    2023

  7. [15]

    Hou, J.; Cao, Z.; Zheng, N.; Li, X.; Chen, X.; Liu, X.; Cong, X.; Zhou, M.; and Hong, D. 2024. Linearly-evolved Transformer for Pan-sharpening. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.12804

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Jin, C.; Deng, L.-J.; Huang, T.-Z.; and Vivone, G. 2022 a . Laplacian pyramid networks: A new approach for multispectral pansharpening. Information Fusion, 78: 158--170

    2022

  9. [17]

    Jin, Z.-R.; Zhang, T.-J.; Jiang, T.-X.; Vivone, G.; and Deng, L.-J. 2022 b . LAGConv: Local-context adaptive convolution kernels with global harmonic bias for pansharpening. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 36, 1113--1121

    2022

  10. [18]

    Kingsbury, N.; and Magarey, J. 1998. Wavelet transforms in image processing

    1998

  11. [19]

    Li, Y.; Zheng, Y.; Li, J.; Song, R.; and Chanussot, J. 2022. Hyperspectral pansharpening with adaptive feature modulation-based detail injection network. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 60: 1--17

    2022

  12. [20]

    Liu, P.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, K.; Lin, L.; and Zuo, W. 2018. Multi-level Wavelet-CNN for Image Restoration. In 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Mallat, S. 1989. A theory for multiresolution signal decomposition: the wavelet representation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 674–693

    1989

  14. [22]

    Masi, G.; Cozzolino, D.; Verdoliva, L.; and Scarpa, G. 2016. Pansharpening by convolutional neural networks. Remote Sensing, 8(7): 594

    2016

  15. [23]

    Meng, X.; Shen, H.; Li, H.; Zhang, L.; and Fu, R. 2019. Review of the pansharpening methods for remote sensing images based on the idea of meta-analysis: Practical discussion and challenges. Information Fusion, 102–113

    2019

  16. [24]

    R.; and Ulfarsson, M

    Palsson, F.; Sveinsson, J. R.; and Ulfarsson, M. O. 2013. A New Pansharpening Algorithm Based on Total Variation. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 318–322

    2013

  17. [25]

    Peng, S.; Guo, C.; Wu, X.; and Deng, L.-J. 2023. U2net: A general framework with spatial-spectral-integrated double u-net for image fusion. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia (ACM MM), 3219--3227

    2023

  18. [26]

    Ran, R.; Deng, L.-J.; Jiang, T.-X.; Hu, J.-F.; Chanussot, J.; and Vivone, G. 2023. GuidedNet: A General CNN Fusion Framework via High-Resolution Guidance for Hyperspectral Image Super-Resolution. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 1--14

    2023

  19. [27]

    Shan, L.; Li, X.; and Wang, W. 2021. Decouple the high-frequency and low-frequency information of images for semantic segmentation. In ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 1805--1809. IEEE

    2021

  20. [28]

    Soydaner, D. 2022. Attention mechanism in neural networks: where it comes and where it goes. Neural Computing and Applications, 34(16): 13371--13385

    2022

  21. [29]

    Tian, X.; Chen, Y.; Yang, C.; and Ma, J. 2022. Variational Pansharpening by Exploiting Cartoon-Texture Similarities. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 1–16

    2022

  22. [30]

    N.; Kaiser, .; and Polosukhin, I

    Vaswani, A.; Shazeer, N.; Parmar, N.; Uszkoreit, J.; Jones, L.; Gomez, A. N.; Kaiser, .; and Polosukhin, I. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30

    2017

  23. [31]

    Vivone, G. 2019. Robust Band-Dependent Spatial-Detail Approaches for Panchromatic Sharpening. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 6421–6433

    2019

  24. [32]

    Vivone, G.; Restaino, R.; and Chanussot, J. 2018. Full Scale Regression-Based Injection Coefficients for Panchromatic Sharpening. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 3418–3431

    2018

  25. [33]

    Wald, L. 2002. Data Fusion. Definitions and Architectures - Fusion of Images of Different Spatial Resolutions. Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe - HAL - Diderot,Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe - HAL - Diderot

    2002

  26. [34]

    Wald, L.; Ranchin, T.; and Mangolini, M. 1997. Fusion of satellite images of different spatial resolutions: Assessing the quality of resulting images. Photogrammetric engineering and remote sensing, 63(6): 691--699

    1997

  27. [35]

    Wang, Y.; Deng, L.-J.; Zhang, T.-J.; and Wu, X. 2021. SSconv: Explicit Spectral-to-Spatial Convolution for Pansharpening. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Multimedia (ACM MM), DOI: 10.1145/3474085.3475600

    2021

  28. [36]

    Wu, Z.-C.; Huang, T.-Z.; Deng, L.-J.; Vivone, G.; Miao, J.-Q.; Hu, J.-F.; and Zhao, X.-L. 2020. A New Variational Approach Based on Proximal Deep Injection and Gradient Intensity Similarity for Spatio-Spectral Image Fusion. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Obse...

    2020

  29. [37]

    Xing, Y.; Zhang, Y.; He, H.; Zhang, X.; and Zhang, Y. 2023. Pansharpening via frequency-aware fusion network with explicit similarity constraints. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 61: 1--14

    2023

  30. [38]

    J.; Zhang, Y.; Luo, T.; Xiao, Y.; and Ma, Z

    Xu, Z.-Q. J.; Zhang, Y.; Luo, T.; Xiao, Y.; and Ma, Z. 2019. Frequency principle: Fourier analysis sheds light on deep neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.06523

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Yang, J.; Fu, X.; Hu, Y.; Huang, Y.; Ding, X.; and Paisley, J. 2017. PanNet: A Deep Network Architecture for Pan-Sharpening. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

    2017

  32. [40]

    Yao, T.; Pan, Y.; Li, Y.; Ngo, C.-W.; and Mei, T. 2022. Wave-vit: Unifying wavelet and transformers for visual representation learning. In European Conference on Computer Vision(ECCV), 328--345. Springer

    2022

  33. [41]

    R.; and Dubey, S

    Yedla, R. R.; and Dubey, S. R. 2021. On the performance of convolutional neural networks under high and low frequency information. In Computer Vision and Image Processing: 5th International Conference, CVIP 2020, Prayagraj, India, December 4-6, 2020, Revised Selected Papers, P...

    2021

  34. [42]

    Yuan, Q.; Wei, Y.; Meng, X.; Shen, H.; and Zhang, L. 2018. A Multiscale and Multidepth Convolutional Neural Network for Remote Sensing Imagery Pan-Sharpening. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 11(3): 978--989

    2018

  35. [43]

    Zhang, T.-J.; Deng, L.-J.; Huang, T.-Z.; Chanussot, J.; and Vivone, G. 2023. A Triple-Double Convolutional Neural Network for Panchromatic Sharpening. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 34(11): 9088--9101

    2023

  36. [44]

    Zhou, H.; Liu, Q.; and Wang, Y. 2022. PanFormer: A transformer based model for pan-sharpening. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME), 1--6. IEEE

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.