Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A Fusion-Guided Inception Network for Hyperspectral Image Super-Resolution

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read FGIN, a 1.07-million-parameter single-image network, reconstructs high-resolution hyperspectral images without aligned auxiliary images and tops the PaviaC benchmark at 2x, 4x, and 8x magnification.

desk verdict A competent lightweight HSI SR network combining known modules, with a genuinely low parameter count, but the reported gains rest on baselines copied from one paper and an under-specified early-stopping rule. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.03431 v1 pith:KWJKKKUC submitted 2025-05-06 cs.CV

Usman Muhammad , Jorma Laaksonen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords hyperspectralimagingsingle-imagesuper-resolutionspectral-spatialfusionmulti-scalefeatureextractioninceptionnetworkupsamplingremotesensing
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 argues that hyperspectral super-resolution does not require a perfectly aligned panchromatic or RGB partner image: a single low-resolution hyperspectral image can be reconstructed competitively by a lightweight network. It proposes FGIN, a 1.07-million-parameter architecture that fuses spectral and spatial information at an early stage, extracts multiscale features through Inception-like branches, and upsamplings with bilinear interpolation plus depthwise separable convolutions. On the PaviaC and PaviaU datasets at 2x, 4x, and 8x downsampling, FGIN matches or exceeds several larger single-image and fusion-based baselines, ranking first on PaviaC in mean PSNR at all three scales. The claim matters because fusion-based methods depend on precise alignment between image pairs, which is hard to guarantee in real scenes; a strong single-image alternative keeps spectral fidelity without that requirement.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the FGIN architecture, and its workhorse is the sequential spectral-spatial fusion module: a 1x1 pointwise convolution reads spectral (channel-wise) correlations, a 3x3 convolution then reads local spatial structure from those spectral features, and a residual connection to the input preserves the original signal. Around this sit three Inception-like blocks, multi-branch units with $1\times1$, $1\times1\to3\times3$, $1\times1\to5\times5$, and $1\times1$ paths, that capture features at different receptive fields, followed by a multi-scale fusion block that concatenates $1\times1$, $3\times3$, and $5\times5$ outputs and projects them back with a $1\times1$ convolution. The upsampling block combines bilinear interpolation with a depthwise separable convolution and a residual shortcut, which the ablations tie to spectral-accuracy retention. Band grouping divides the spectral bands into overlapping groups of size 32 with one-fourth overlap, giving the network a computationally tractable view of spectral continuity.

What would settle it

Inspect the released training code to see which image region drives early stopping. If the bottom-center patch of PaviaC or the top-left patch of PaviaU, the same patches used for testing, is used for the stopping decision, the reported MPSNR and SAM are optimistic. Re-running training with early stopping on a separate held-out validation region and recomputing Table II would settle the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that the specific combination of a sequential spectral-spatial fusion module, three Inception-like multi-branch blocks, a multi-scale fusion block, and an optimized upsampling unit forms a single-image hyperspectral super-resolution network that is both small and accurate. In Table II, FGIN reports the highest MPSNR on PaviaC at 2x (36.57), 4x (29.58), and 8x (25.75), and the best SAM at 4x and 8x on that dataset, while using 1.07 million parameters versus 1.59-2.30 million for the compared networks. On PaviaU it reports competitive MPSNR and SAM at most scales. The paper interprets these results as evidence that early spectral-spatial fusion plus multiscale extraction is sufficient to recover fine spatial detail while preserving spectral consistency, removing the reliance on precisely aligned external high-resolution images.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the early-stopping criterion is evaluated on a held-out validation split; the paper does not state such a split, so if test patches were used to stop training, the reported image-quality gains would be optimistic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Single-image hyperspectral super-resolution becomes viable in settings where no aligned high-resolution auxiliary image is available, such as cloudy scenes or moving platforms.
  • At the scales tested, a network with 1.07 million parameters can be competitive with networks up to roughly twice as large, so the architecture is a plausible starting point for onboard or embedded processing.
  • The component ablations suggest that the optimized upsampling block and band grouping chiefly protect spectral fidelity (SAM) rather than raw spatial sharpness (MPSNR), guiding future designs toward spectral-aware modules.
  • The same patch-based protocol yields results at 2x, 4x, and 8x, so the network's advantage is not confined to mild upsampling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An unstated corollary is that the same sequential spectral-spatial fusion and multiscale blocks could be dropped into fusion-based hyperspectral super-resolution as a backbone, using the auxiliary image as an additional input branch.
  • Because the ablation shows group size 16 yields best SAM while group size 32 yields best MPSNR, a learnable band-grouping size or overlap is a natural extension the paper does not explore.
  • The single largest threat to the comparison is the unspecified early-stopping split; verifying that the test patches are excluded would determine whether the reported margins are real.
  • The method is tested on only two Pavia scenes; a testable extension is to run the same 1.07M-parameter configuration on datasets with substantially more bands or with synthetic misalignment to confirm the alignment-free advantage.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes FGIN, a lightweight single-image hyperspectral image super-resolution network that combines a spectral-spatial fusion module, Inception-like blocks, multi-scale fusion, and an upsampling block based on bilinear interpolation plus depthwise separable convolutions. The method is evaluated on the PaviaC and PaviaU datasets at 2x, 4x, and 8x downsampling factors. The authors report MPSNR, MSSIM, and SAM, an ablation study on PaviaU 4x, and a parameter count comparison, concluding that FGIN is competitive or superior to several state-of-the-art methods while using only 1.07 million parameters.

Significance. If the empirical results are valid, FGIN offers a compact architecture for single-image HSI super-resolution, and the authors make their source code publicly available. The strongest contribution is the combination of known components into a 1.07M-parameter network that reportedly performs well on standard benchmarks. However, the evidence currently falls short of supporting the headline claim. The comparison table reuses baseline numbers from a prior paper without rerunning them, no error bars or statistical tests are provided, the early-stopping criterion is not tied to a documented validation split, and the ablation contradicts the claim that the spectral-spatial fusion block is a key component for reconstruction quality. These issues are fixable within the scope of the manuscript, but they need to be addressed before the results can be considered reliable.

major comments (4)
  1. [Table II caption and Section III.A] The caption of Table II states that all comparison results are 'reported from [15]', but the central claim that FGIN is competitive or superior rests on these numbers. Because the FGIN rows are produced in this paper while the baseline rows are not recomputed under the same training, patch, and stopping protocol, the comparison is valid only under the undocumented assumption that the protocols match exactly. Please rerun the baselines under the FGIN protocol, or provide a detailed protocol-matching justification; otherwise the claimed rankings are not independently supported.
  2. [Section III.A] The implementation section says 'An early stopping criterion is applied to prevent overfitting' but does not state which validation set is used to decide when to stop. Since the test set is a single 144x144 patch per dataset, selecting the stopping epoch with knowledge of that patch would optimistically bias the reported MPSNR, MSSIM, and SAM values. Please specify the validation split and stopping rule, and ideally report mean and standard deviation over multiple runs or multiple test patches.
  3. [Table I and Section III.B] The ablation labeled 'FGIN w/o spectral-fusion' improves MPSNR on PaviaU 4x from 30.33 to 30.49 dB, while only slightly worsening SAM from 4.819 to 4.864. The text interprets this as showing that spectral-spatial fusion 'plays a crucial role in preserving spectral consistency,' but the primary reconstruction metric favors removing the block and the SAM difference is tiny and unrepeated. This interpretation is not supported without error bars or statistical testing. Please either provide additional evidence that the fusion module improves spectral consistency or temper the claim.
  4. [Sections II.A and III.A] The band grouping strategy is described as partitioning adjacent spectral bands into overlapping groups of size 32 with one-fourth overlap, but the paper never specifies how the groups are constructed in detail or how their outputs are recombined after passing through the network. The equations in Section II operate on a single feature map X of shape H x W x C, so it is unclear whether each group is processed independently and then concatenated, or whether all 102/103 bands are treated as input channels. This ambiguity makes the architecture unreproducible from the paper alone; please make the group-wise processing and merging explicit.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (4)] The branch set is written as {1x1, 1x1->3x3, 1x1->5x5, 1x1}, which lists the 1x1 branch twice; please label the branches unambiguously.
  2. [Section III.B] Abbreviation labels such as 'FGIN w/s 16' and 'FGIN w/s 32' should be spelled out as 'group size 16' and 'group size 32' in the table or caption.
  3. [Section III.A] The phrase 'area-based interpolation' is vague; please specify the exact downsampling implementation (e.g., PIL, OpenCV, or MATLAB-style 'imresize').
  4. [Section III.A] The acronyms MPSNR, MSSIM, and SAM are used without explicit definitions; please define them in the experimental setup section rather than only citing [31].
  5. [Table II] The paper does not include any qualitative results, such as reconstructed images or residual maps; adding visual comparisons would help support the quantitative claims.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: FGIN's empirical performance claim is not forced by construction; self-citations are peripheral.

full rationale

FGIN is an empirical deep-learning architecture paper; the central claim is the measured reconstruction quality reported in Table II. The derivation chain consists of standard convolutional operations (spectral-spatial fusion, Inception-like blocks, multi-scale fusion, and an upsampling module), none of which defines its output in terms of the target metric or inverts the evaluation protocol. The band-group size (32) is chosen via the ablation study in Table I, which is ordinary model selection rather than a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The comparison numbers in Table II are copied from reference [15] rather than recomputed, and the early-stopping criterion is not fully described, but these are reproducibility and comparability concerns, not evidence that a prediction reduces to its own inputs by construction. The paper's self-citations ([13] on SISR background and [31] on metric definition) are contextual and do not carry the load of the performance claim. No equation in the manuscript equates a fitted quantity with a reported result, and no uniqueness theorem or prior result by the same authors is invoked to force the architecture choice. The reported MPSNR/SAM values remain externally falsifiable and are not definitionally tied to the training objective or to any fitted hyperparameter. Therefore, the central empirical result is self-contained and not circular; the score of 1 reflects only the presence of minor, non-load-bearing self-citations and does not indicate a substantive circularity problem.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the dataset split and degradation model inherited from CSSFENet [15], and on the representativeness of two Pavia scenes. The main free parameters are architectural choices (band-group size, number of inception blocks, filter count, patch size, batch size) that are either set from [15] or chosen with partial ablation; none is fitted to the test set. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • band_group_size = 32
    Chosen via ablation on PaviaU 4x; group size 32 yields highest MPSNR (30.33) among 16/32/48, but group size 16 gives lower SAM (3.331), so the choice trades off spectral vs spatial quality.
  • num_inception_blocks = 3
    Selected empirically; no ablation is reported to justify this number.
  • shallow_filter_count = 32
    Choice of first convolutional layer filters; not ablated.
  • band_overlap_ratio = 0.25
    One-fourth overlap between adjacent spectral band groups, set without ablation.
  • patch_size = 144x144
    Taken from CSSFENet [15] protocol; not ablated.
  • batch_size = 4
    Adam optimizer with batch size 4; no sensitivity analysis.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Area-based interpolation simulates the real degradation of hyperspectral images.
    The LR inputs are generated by area interpolation from HR patches (Section III.A); if real LR-HR pairs follow a different degradation, the learned reconstruction may not transfer.
  • domain assumption PaviaC and PaviaU are representative of hyperspectral imaging scenarios.
    The evaluation is limited to two datasets; generalizability to other sensors or scenes is assumed.
  • domain assumption The test patches specified in CSSFENet [15] are representative and separate from training.
    The paper follows the split from [15] without validating it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Fusion-Guided Inception Network for Hyperspectral Image Super-Resolution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KWJKKKUC

@misc{pith2026250503431,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Fusion-Guided Inception Network for Hyperspectral Image Super-Resolution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KWJKKKUC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.03431}
}
read the original abstract

The fusion of low-spatial-resolution hyperspectral images (HSIs) with high-spatial-resolution conventional images (e.g., panchromatic or RGB) has played a significant role in recent advancements in HSI super-resolution. However, this fusion process relies on the availability of precise alignment between image pairs, which is often challenging in real-world scenarios. To mitigate this limitation, we propose a single-image super-resolution model called the Fusion-Guided Inception Network (FGIN). Specifically, we first employ a spectral-spatial fusion module to effectively integrate spectral and spatial information at an early stage. Next, an Inception-like hierarchical feature extraction strategy is used to capture multiscale spatial dependencies, followed by a dedicated multi-scale fusion block. To further enhance reconstruction quality, we incorporate an optimized upsampling module that combines bilinear interpolation with depthwise separable convolutions. Experimental evaluations on two publicly available hyperspectral datasets demonstrate the competitive performance of our method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.03431 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the proposed FGIN model. The architecture consists of: (1) a Spectral-Spatial Fusion module (left); (2) Inception-like multiscale feature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

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. DACN: Dual-Attention Convolutional Network for Hyperspectral Image Super-Resolution

    eess.IV 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A dual-attention CNN with multi-head self-attention and channel attention improves hyperspectral super-resolution on PaviaC/PaviaU.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [15]

    Hyperspectral image super-resolution based on feature diversity extraction,

    J. Zhang, R. Zheng, Z. Wan, R. Geng, Y . Wang, Y . Yang, X. Zhang, and Y . Li, “Hyperspectral image super-resolution based on feature diversity extraction,” Remote Sensing, vol. 16, no. 3, p. 436, 2024

    2024

  2. [1]

    Lcrca: image super- resolution using lightweight concatenated residual channel attention net- works,

    C. Peng, P. Shu, X. Huang, Z. Fu, and X. Li, “Lcrca: image super- resolution using lightweight concatenated residual channel attention net- works,” Applied Intelligence, pp. 1–15, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [2]

    Pre-trained vggnet architecture for remote-sensing image scene classification,

    U. Muhammad, W. Wang, S. P. Chattha, and S. Ali, “Pre-trained vggnet architecture for remote-sensing image scene classification,” in 2018 24th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 1622–1627

    work page 2018

  4. [3]

    Feature fusion with deep supervision for remote-sensing image scene classification,

    U. Muhammad, W. Wang, and A. Hadid, “Feature fusion with deep supervision for remote-sensing image scene classification,” in 2018 IEEE 30th international conference on tools with artificial intelligence (ICTAI). IEEE, 2018, pp. 249–253

    work page 2018

  5. [4]

    Bag of words kaze (bowk) with two-step classification for high-resolution remote sensing images,

    U. Muhammad, W. Wang, A. Hadid, and S. Pervez, “Bag of words kaze (bowk) with two-step classification for high-resolution remote sensing images,” IET Computer Vision , vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 395–403, 2019

    2019

  6. [5]

    Patch-based discriminative learning for remote sensing scene classification,

    U. Muhammad, M. Z. Hoque, W. Wang, and M. Oussalah, “Patch-based discriminative learning for remote sensing scene classification,” Remote Sensing, vol. 14, no. 23, p. 5913, 2022

    2022

  7. [6]

    Single hyperspectral image super-resolution using a progressive upsampling deep prior network,

    H. Wang, W. Zheng, Y . Wang, T. Yang, K. Zhang, and Y . Shang, “Single hyperspectral image super-resolution using a progressive upsampling deep prior network,” Electronic Research Archive , vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 4517– 4542, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [7]

    Hyperspectral and multispectral image fusion based on band simulation,

    X. Li, Y . Yuan, and Q. Wang, “Hyperspectral and multispectral image fusion based on band simulation,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 479–483, 2019

    2019

Show all 31 references
  1. [8]

    Deep blind super- resolution for hyperspectral images,

    P. Yang, Y . Ma, X. Mei, Q. Chen, M. Wu, and J. Ma, “Deep blind super- resolution for hyperspectral images,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 157, p. 110916, 2025

    2025

  2. [9]

    Bayesian fusion of multi-band images,

    Q. Wei, N. Dobigeon, and J.-Y . Tourneret, “Bayesian fusion of multi-band images,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing , vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 1117–1127, 2015

    2015

  3. [10]

    Coupled nonnegative matrix factorization unmixing for hyperspectral and multispectral data fusion,

    N. Yokoya, T. Yairi, and A. Iwasaki, “Coupled nonnegative matrix factorization unmixing for hyperspectral and multispectral data fusion,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 528–537, 2011

    2011

  4. [11]

    Sparse spatio-spectral representation for hyperspectral image super-resolution,

    N. Akhtar, F. Shafait, and A. Mian, “Sparse spatio-spectral representation for hyperspectral image super-resolution,” in Computer Vision–ECCV 2014: 13th European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proceedings, Part VII 13 . Springer, 2014, pp. 63–78

    2014

  5. [12]

    An integrated approach to registration and fusion of hyperspectral and multispectral images,

    Y . Zhou, A. Rangarajan, and P. D. Gader, “An integrated approach to registration and fusion of hyperspectral and multispectral images,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 3020– 3033, 2019

    2019

  6. [13]

    Towards lightweight hyperspectral image super-resolution with depthwise separable dilated convolutional network,

    U. Muhammad, J. Laaksonen, and L. Mihaylova, “Towards lightweight hyperspectral image super-resolution with depthwise separable dilated convolutional network,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.00374 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Hi- erarchical spatio-spectral fusion for hyperspectral image super resolution via sparse representation and pre-trained deep model,

    J. Yang, C. Wu, T. You, D. Wang, Y . Li, C. Shang, and Q. Shen, “Hi- erarchical spatio-spectral fusion for hyperspectral image super resolution via sparse representation and pre-trained deep model,” Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 260, p. 110170, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Hyperspectral image super-resolution with convlstm skip-connections,

    Y . Xu, J. Hou, X. Zhu, C. Wang, H. Shi, J. Wang, Y . Li, and P. Ren, “Hyperspectral image super-resolution with convlstm skip-connections,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Combining global receptive field and spatial spectral information for single-image hyperspectral super- resolution,

    Y . Wu, R. Cao, Y . Hu, J. Wang, and K. Li, “Combining global receptive field and spatial spectral information for single-image hyperspectral super- resolution,” Neurocomputing, vol. 542, p. 126277, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Spectral–spatial residual network for hyperspectral image classification: A 3-d deep learning framework,

    Z. Zhong, J. Li, Z. Luo, and M. Chapman, “Spectral–spatial residual network for hyperspectral image classification: A 3-d deep learning framework,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 847–858, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    Going deeper with convolutions,

    C. Szegedy, W. Liu, Y . Jia, P. Sermanet, S. Reed, D. Anguelov, D. Erhan, V . Vanhoucke, and A. Rabinovich, “Going deeper with convolutions,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2015, pp. 1–9

    2015

  12. [20]

    Mobilenets: Efficient convolutional neural networks for mobile vision applications,

    A. G. Howard, “Mobilenets: Efficient convolutional neural networks for mobile vision applications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.04861 , 2017

    2017 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2016, pp. 770–778

    2016

  14. [22]

    Enhancing hy- perspectral images via diffusion model and group-autoencoder super- resolution network,

    Z. Wang, D. Li, M. Zhang, H. Luo, and M. Gong, “Enhancing hy- perspectral images via diffusion model and group-autoencoder super- resolution network,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 38, no. 6, 2024, pp. 5794–5804

    2024

  15. [23]

    Exploring the relationship between 2d/3d convolution for hyperspectral image super-resolution,

    L. Qiang, Q. Wang, and X. Li, “Exploring the relationship between 2d/3d convolution for hyperspectral image super-resolution,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 59, no. 10, pp. 8693–8703, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Mixed 2d/3d convolutional network for hyperspectral image super-resolution,

    Q. Li, Q. Wang, and X. Li, “Mixed 2d/3d convolutional network for hyperspectral image super-resolution,” Remote sensing , vol. 12, no. 10, p. 1660, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    Deep posterior distribution-based embedding for hyperspectral image super-resolution,

    J. Hou, Z. Zhu, J. Hou, H. Zeng, J. Wu, and J. Zhou, “Deep posterior distribution-based embedding for hyperspectral image super-resolution,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , vol. 31, pp. 5720–5732, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Accurate image super-resolution using very deep convolutional networks,

    J. Kim, J. K. Lee, and K. M. Lee, “Accurate image super-resolution using very deep convolutional networks,” inProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2016, pp. 1646–1654

    2016

  19. [27]

    Enhanced deep residual networks for single image super-resolution,

    B. Lim, S. Son, H. Kim, S. Nah, and K. Mu Lee, “Enhanced deep residual networks for single image super-resolution,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops , 2017, pp. 136–144

    2017

  20. [28]

    Msdformer: Multi-scale deformable transformer for hyperspectral image super-resolution,

    S. Chen, L. Zhang, and L. Zhang, “Msdformer: Multi-scale deformable transformer for hyperspectral image super-resolution,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Multi-scale feature mapping net- work for hyperspectral image super-resolution,

    J. Zhang, M. Shao, Z. Wan, and Y . Li, “Multi-scale feature mapping net- work for hyperspectral image super-resolution,” Remote Sensing, vol. 13, no. 20, p. 4180, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    As 3 itransunet: Spatial-spectral interactive transformer u-net with alternating sampling for hyperspectral image super-resolution,

    Q. Xu, S. Liu, J. Wang, B. Jiang, and J. Tang, “As 3 itransunet: Spatial-spectral interactive transformer u-net with alternating sampling for hyperspectral image super-resolution,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    A comparison of hyperspectral super-resolution techniques for boreal forest imagery,

    Y . Chudasama, U. Muhammad, V . Mayra, F. Guiotte, and J. Laaksonen, “A comparison of hyperspectral super-resolution techniques for boreal forest imagery,” in IGARSS 2024-2024 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium . IEEE, 2024, pp. 1226–1230

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.