2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.ins.2020.06.011
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Two-stream feature aggregation deep neural network for scene classification of remote sensing images

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0
1

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
0
15
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Training-to-test set ratio 20% 50% PLSA(SIFT) [10] 56.24±0.58 63.07±1.77 BoVW(SIFT) [10] 62.49±0.53 68.37±0.40 AlexNet [10] 86.86±0.47 89.53±0.31 VGGNet-16 [10] 86.59±0.29 89.64±0.36 GoogLeNet [10] 83.44±0.40 86.39±0.55 CaffeNet [10] 86.86±0.47 89.53±0.31 TEX-Net with VGG [41] 87.32±0.37 90.00±0.33 D-CNN with AlexNet [13] 85.62±0.10 94.47±0.12 SPP with AlexNet [19] 87.44±0.45 91.45±0.38 Two-Stream Fusion [26] 92.32±0.41 94.58±0.25 Fusion by addition [20] --91.87±0.36 MIDC-Net [66] 88.51±0.41 92.95±0.17 Gated attention [64] 87.63±0.44 92.01±0.21 DFAGCN [44] --94.88±0.22 TFADNN [67] 93.21±0.32 95.04±0.16 Inception-v3-CapsNet [34] 93.79±0.13 96.32±0.12 Backbone (Xception) [47] 86.12±0.28 90.14±0.52 CSDS (ours) 94.29±0.35 96.70±0.14…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Training-to-test set ratio 20% 50% PLSA(SIFT) [10] 56.24±0.58 63.07±1.77 BoVW(SIFT) [10] 62.49±0.53 68.37±0.40 AlexNet [10] 86.86±0.47 89.53±0.31 VGGNet-16 [10] 86.59±0.29 89.64±0.36 GoogLeNet [10] 83.44±0.40 86.39±0.55 CaffeNet [10] 86.86±0.47 89.53±0.31 TEX-Net with VGG [41] 87.32±0.37 90.00±0.33 D-CNN with AlexNet [13] 85.62±0.10 94.47±0.12 SPP with AlexNet [19] 87.44±0.45 91.45±0.38 Two-Stream Fusion [26] 92.32±0.41 94.58±0.25 Fusion by addition [20] --91.87±0.36 MIDC-Net [66] 88.51±0.41 92.95±0.17 Gated attention [64] 87.63±0.44 92.01±0.21 DFAGCN [44] --94.88±0.22 TFADNN [67] 93.21±0.32 95.04±0.16 Inception-v3-CapsNet [34] 93.79±0.13 96.32±0.12 Backbone (Xception) [47] 86.12±0.28 90.14±0.52 CSDS (ours) 94.29±0.35 96.70±0.14…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Dong et al [16] fused the deep CNN features with the GIST features before the classification by LSTM. Xu et al [17] proposed a two-stream feature fusion method, where one stream provided features using a pretrained CNN while the other output the multi-scale unsupervised MNBOVW features. Shi et al [19] proposed a network with several groups, each of which had two branches for feature extraction and fusion respectively.…”
Section: The Feature-level Fusion-based Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Freeway Basketball_Court Golf_Course Ship Thermal_Power_Station Tennis_Court Island In recent years, different strategies of feature-level fusion have already been investigated [16][17][18][19][20], which could produce more discriminative features and better performance than the methods that only utilize deep features. Nevertheless, such feature-level fusion still has shortcomings.…”
Section: Airplanementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…With the growing amount of data, there is a practical need for a faster and more accurate automated approach to extract their semantic content information and to identify and classify land use and land cover (LULC) types in those images. RS image scene classification [5][6][7] is one crucial way to help alleviate the problem mentioned above since it automatically assigns semantic labels to an RS image scene and has been widely studied due to its vital contributions in land resources planning [8], disaster monitoring [9], urban planning [10], object detection [11], and many other RS applications [12][13][14][15].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%