2018 13th International Conference on Computer Engineering and Systems (ICCES) 2018
DOI: 10.1109/icces.2018.8639467
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of CNNs for Remote Sensing Scene Classification

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Extensive experiments on the PatternNet dataset are conducted by the combination of proposed SDAResNet and several tricks. As can be seen in Table 3, our results outperform other comparison approaches [5], [46], [47] with overall accuracy of 99.30% and 99.58% under training ratios of 20% and 50%, respectively. As shown in Table 3, LANet [5] and GLANet(SVM) [5] (98.64% and 98.91% under training ratio of 20%) are superior to all CNN-based single feature methods, which indicates that using attention mechanism is a good strategy to further improve classification accuracy, but still inferior to our SDAResNet.…”
Section: ) Comparative Results On Patternnet Datasetmentioning
confidence: 65%
“…Extensive experiments on the PatternNet dataset are conducted by the combination of proposed SDAResNet and several tricks. As can be seen in Table 3, our results outperform other comparison approaches [5], [46], [47] with overall accuracy of 99.30% and 99.58% under training ratios of 20% and 50%, respectively. As shown in Table 3, LANet [5] and GLANet(SVM) [5] (98.64% and 98.91% under training ratio of 20%) are superior to all CNN-based single feature methods, which indicates that using attention mechanism is a good strategy to further improve classification accuracy, but still inferior to our SDAResNet.…”
Section: ) Comparative Results On Patternnet Datasetmentioning
confidence: 65%
“…Linear decay learning rate scheduler and cyclical learning rates are used to tune the hyperparameter of the network and label smoothing regularization is used to avoid the overfitting. Shafaey et al [46] explored a deep learning model performance for remote sensing image classification. A comprehensive review is presented by considering the deep learning models such as AlexNet, VGGNet, GoogLeNet, Inception-V3, and ResNet101.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Decision Tree (DT), Random Forest (RF), K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN), Naïve Bayes (NB), and SVM are used for predicting the class labels, and the results are compared with the above-mentioned deep learning models. A detailed quantitative comparison in terms of results is presented by considering seven publicly available datasets [46]. In another research, Zhao et al [47] stated that Residual Dense Network (RDN) is with more learning ability as it can utilize the information available in convolutional layers.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1 show images captured by five different satellites; the domain shift occurs according to the specification of the image sensors. Also, Table 1 describes the details of four land-use aerial/satellite datasets, which were collected from different institutions [10], [11]. Given multi-domain images, we aim to build a deep network model to be suited well into the multiple source domains; this problem is referred to as multi-domain learning [12].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In(10), we use the expected squared gradient norm to characterize the convergence rate, as in[54]-[58].VOLUME 4, 2016 …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%