Semi-supervised Scene Classification of Remote Sensing Images Based on GAN

Ying XIA; Junyao LI; Dongen GUO

doi:10.3788/gzxb20225103.0310003

Acta Photonica Sinica, Volume. 51, Issue 3, 0310003(2022)

Semi-supervised Scene Classification of Remote Sensing Images Based on GAN

Ying XIA1,*... Junyao LI1, and Dongen GUO12 |Show fewer author(s)

¹Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications，Chongqing Engineering Research Center of Spatial Big Data Intelligent Technology，Chongqing 400065，China

²School of Computer and Software，Nanyang Institute of Technology，Nanyang ，Henan 473000，China

show less

Abstract Get PDF(in Chinese)

Figures & Tables(10)

Fig. 1. SFGAN network structure

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 2. RAGAN network structure

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 3. Basic structure of residual neural network

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 4. Feature fusion and GAM structure

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 5. Confusion matrix of different number of markers in EuroSAT dataset

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 6. Confusion matrix of different number of markers in UCM dataset

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 7. Accuracy curves of different numbers of markers in EuroSAT and UCM datasets

Download full size

View in Article

Table 1. Dataset information
View table
View in Article
Table 1. Dataset information
Dataset Images per category Number of categories Total images Size
EuroSAT 2 000~3 000 10 27 000 64×64
UC Merced 100 21 2100 256×256

Table 2. Classification results on EuroSAT and UCM datasets

View table

View in Article

Table 2. Classification results on EuroSAT and UCM datasets

Method	Numbers of label M on EuroSAT （10 class）				Time/h	Numbers of label M on Ucm （21 class）				Time/h
	100	1 000	2 000	21 600		100	200	400	1 680
CNN^［6］	29.3%	46.1%	59.0%	83.2%	25	18.5%	32.8%	43.6%	62.1%	1
Inception V3^［6］	63.9%	84.6%	87.9%	91.5%	27	55.4%	71.1%	81.1%	85.4%	1.7
FMGAN^［2］	63.0%	75.8%	78.3%	86.9%	30	43.6%	69.2%	74.5%	80.2%	1.5
REG⁃GAN^［9］	64.7%	72.8%	76.4%	82.3%	28	40.4%	55.4%	63.6%	72.3%	1.3
SFGAN^［6］	68.6%	86.1%	89.0%	93.2%	31.5	43.9%	52.1%	60.6%	79.5%	2
SAGGAN^［10］	76.8%	88.1%	90.7%	94.3%	33	54.1%	69.7%	83.3%	90.5%	2
RAGAN（ours）	71.5%	88.2%	93.3%	97.4%	37.5	55.2%	71.4%	85.7%	91.0%	2.25

Table 3. Influence of each module on classification accuracy

View table

View in Article

Table 3. Influence of each module on classification accuracy

Method	Numbers of label M on EuroSAT （10 class）				Time/h	Numbers of label M on UCM （21class）				Time/h
	100	1 000	2 000	21 600		100	200	400	1 680
SFGAN	68.6%	86.1%	89.0%	93.2%	31.5	43.9%	52.1%	60.6%	79.5%	2
+SNRB	73.0%	88.1%	91.6%	95.9%	34.8	45.7%	52.9%	68.3%	82.4%	2.1
+GAM	70.7%	87.3%	92.6%	97.1%	33.5	54.8%	58.2%	77.8%	90.7%	2.1
+Fusion	65.4%	86.3%	90.4%	93.4%	32	41.9%	50.7%	65.6%	80.9%	2
+All	71.5%	88.2%	93.3%	97.4%	37.5	55.2%	71.4%	85.7%	91.0%	2.25

Tools

Get Citation

Copy Citation Text

Ying XIA, Junyao LI, Dongen GUO. Semi-supervised Scene Classification of Remote Sensing Images Based on GAN[J]. Acta Photonica Sinica, 2022, 51(3): 0310003

Download Citation

EndNote(RIS)BibTex Plain Text

Set citation alerts for article

Save article for my favorites