2022
DOI: 10.1109/tgrs.2022.3186588
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Remote Sensing Scene Classification Based on Attention-Enabled Progressively Searching

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…LGRINet (Xu et al, 2022a(Xu et al, , 2022b(Xu et al, , 2022c(Xu et al, , 2022d 4 (Shen et al, 2022a) 3.8 95.32 (TR-60%) TST-Net (Chen et al, 2018) KD 1.0 80.00(TR-60%) ESD-MBENet (Zhao et al, 2022) 23.9 93.05 6 0.18 95.36 6 0.14 ET-GSNet (Xu et al, 2022a(Xu et al, , 2022b(Xu et al, , 2022c(Xu et al, , 2022d (Bi et al, 2022) Feature refining >12.5 93.04 6 0.35 94.91 6 0.17 MGS-Net (Guo et al, 2022) 244.2 91.92 6 0.12 94.33 6 0.08 GSCCTL-Net (Song and Yang, 2022) None 91.96 None ViT-Huge (Bazi et al, 2021) Single ViT 86 93.83 6 0.46 None ViT-AEv2 (Wang et al, 2023) 18.8 94.41 6 0.11 95.60 6 0.06 SC-ViT (Lv et al, 2022) 40.1 92.72 6 0.04 94.66 6 0.10 DFAGC-Net (Xu et al, 2022a(Xu et al, , 2022b(Xu et al, , 2022c(Xu et al, , 2022d Multiple models None None 89.29 6 0.28 GRMA-Net (Li et al, 2022) 54.1 93.67 6 0.21 95.32 6 0.28 ACNet (Tang et al, 2021) >276.6 91.09 6 0.13 92.42 6 0.16 T-CNN (Wang et al, 2022b) 15.9 90.25 6 0.14 93.05 6 0.12 GLDBS-Net (Xu et al, 2022a(Xu et al, , 2022b(Xu et al, , 2022c…”
Section: Efficient Knowledge Distillationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…LGRINet (Xu et al, 2022a(Xu et al, , 2022b(Xu et al, , 2022c(Xu et al, , 2022d 4 (Shen et al, 2022a) 3.8 95.32 (TR-60%) TST-Net (Chen et al, 2018) KD 1.0 80.00(TR-60%) ESD-MBENet (Zhao et al, 2022) 23.9 93.05 6 0.18 95.36 6 0.14 ET-GSNet (Xu et al, 2022a(Xu et al, , 2022b(Xu et al, , 2022c(Xu et al, , 2022d (Bi et al, 2022) Feature refining >12.5 93.04 6 0.35 94.91 6 0.17 MGS-Net (Guo et al, 2022) 244.2 91.92 6 0.12 94.33 6 0.08 GSCCTL-Net (Song and Yang, 2022) None 91.96 None ViT-Huge (Bazi et al, 2021) Single ViT 86 93.83 6 0.46 None ViT-AEv2 (Wang et al, 2023) 18.8 94.41 6 0.11 95.60 6 0.06 SC-ViT (Lv et al, 2022) 40.1 92.72 6 0.04 94.66 6 0.10 DFAGC-Net (Xu et al, 2022a(Xu et al, , 2022b(Xu et al, , 2022c(Xu et al, , 2022d Multiple models None None 89.29 6 0.28 GRMA-Net (Li et al, 2022) 54.1 93.67 6 0.21 95.32 6 0.28 ACNet (Tang et al, 2021) >276.6 91.09 6 0.13 92.42 6 0.16 T-CNN (Wang et al, 2022b) 15.9 90.25 6 0.14 93.05 6 0.12 GLDBS-Net (Xu et al, 2022a(Xu et al, , 2022b(Xu et al, , 2022c…”
Section: Efficient Knowledge Distillationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, applying NAS to RSI data sets could yield more efficient deep models that leverage general RSI features. However, existing NAS studies (Ao et al , 2023; Broni-Bediako et al , 2022; Shen et al , 2022a) have only validated their models on RSI data sets significantly smaller than ImageNet-1K. Consequently, these NAS-based models have demonstrated smaller volumes without achieving competitive accuracy.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Among these deep learning based methods, CNNs are the most commonly-utilized [2], [18]- [21], [44] as the convolutional filters are effective to extract multi-level features from the image. In the past two years, CNN based methods (e.g., DSENet [45], MS2AP [46], MSDFF [47], CADNet [48], LSENet [5], GBNet [49], MBLANet [50], MG-CAP [51], Contourlet CNN [52], STHP [53], SAGM [54], DARTS [55], LML [56], GCSANet [57]) still remain heated for aerial scene classification. On the other hand, recurrent neural network (RNN) based [25], auto-encoder based [58], [59] and generative adversarial network (GAN) based [60], [61] approaches have also been reported effective for aerial scene classification.…”
Section: A Aerial Scene Classificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We compare the performance of our AGOS with three handcrafted features (PLSA, BOW, LDA) [17], [87], three typical CNN models (AlexNet, VGG, GoogLeNet) [17], [87], twentytwo latest CNN-based state-of-the-art approaches (MIDCNet [2], RANet [29], APNet [88], SPPNet [20], DCNN [28], TEXNet [89], MSCP [18], VGG+FV [21], DSENet [45], MS2AP [46], MSDFF [47], CADNet [48], LSENet [5], GBNet [49], MBLANet [50], MG-CAP [51], Contourlet CNN [52], STHP [53], SAGM [54], DARTS [55], LML [56], GCSANet [57]), one RNN-based approach (ARCNet [25]), two autoencoder based approaches (SGUFL [59], PARTLETS [58]) and two GAN-based approaches (MARTA [60], AGAN [61]) respectively. The performance under the backbone of ResNet-50, ResNet-101 and DenseNet-121 is all reported for fair evaluation as some latest methods [47], [48] use much deeper networks as backbone.…”
Section: Comparison With State-of-the-art Approachesmentioning
confidence: 99%