luisgomezchova
commited on
Commit
•
daf0607
1
Parent(s):
93e9c59
Update README.md
Browse files
README.md
CHANGED
@@ -12,18 +12,17 @@ tags:
|
|
12 |
- super-resolution
|
13 |
---
|
14 |
|
15 |
-
# **
|
16 |
|
17 |
|
18 |
|
19 |
## **Introduction**
|
20 |
|
21 |
-
Super-resolution (SR) techniques
|
22 |
-
|
23 |
improve the accuracy of various remote sensing downstream tasks, including road detection, crop delineation,
|
24 |
-
and object recognition. However, some researchers
|
25 |
-
suggesting that its main value lies in creating more visually appealing
|
26 |
-
by non-experts.
|
27 |
|
28 |
Another criticism of SR is that it can degrade the original input data, potentially leading to incorrect conclusions.
|
29 |
However, some SR methods appear more conservative than others in preserving reflectance integrity. Given this,
|
@@ -31,22 +30,45 @@ a reliable benchmark is essential for providing quantitative assessments of the
|
|
31 |
such benchmarks, it remains difficult to conclusively determine the true impact of SR techniques on remote sensing data.
|
32 |
|
33 |
To establish a reliable framework, we propose the creation of a dedicated working group aimed at intercomparing super-resolution
|
34 |
-
algorithms for Sentinel-2 data (
|
35 |
-
and space agencies are encouraged to participate in
|
36 |
to evaluate the consistency with the original input data and the reliability of the high-frequency details introduced by the
|
37 |
SR models.
|
38 |
|
39 |
-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40 |
|
41 |
About the high-resolution (HR) reference, we are considering:
|
42 |
|
43 |
-
- **naip:** A set of 62 orthophotos mainly from agricultural and forest regions in the USA.
|
44 |
- **spot:** A set of 10 SPOT images obtained from Worldstrat.
|
45 |
-
- **spain_urban:** A set of 20 orthophotos, primarily from urban areas of Spain, including roads.
|
46 |
-
- **spain_crops:** A set of 20 orthophotos, primarily taken from agricultural areas near cities in Spain.
|
47 |
- **venus:** A set of 60 VENµS images obtained from SEN2VENµS.
|
48 |
|
49 |
-
Each HR reference includes Sentinel-2 imagery preprocessed at 1C and 2A levels. Here is an example of how
|
50 |
to load each dataset.
|
51 |
|
52 |
```{python}
|
@@ -57,38 +79,37 @@ lr, hr = dataset["L2A"], dataset["HRharm"]
|
|
57 |
```
|
58 |
|
59 |
|
60 |
-
## **Metrics**
|
61 |
-
|
62 |
|
63 |
We propose the following metrics to assess the consistency of SR models:
|
64 |
|
65 |
-
- **Reflectance:** This metric evaluates how SR affects the reflectance
|
66 |
Error (MAE) distance by default. Lower values indicate better reflectance consistency. The SR image is downsampled to LR
|
67 |
-
resolution using a triangular anti-aliasing filter and downsampling by
|
68 |
|
69 |
- **Spectral:** This metric measures how SR impacts the spectral signature of the LR image, employing the Spectral Angle
|
70 |
Distance (SAM) by default. Lower values indicate better spectral consistency, with angles measured in degrees. The SR image
|
71 |
-
is downsampled to LR resolution using a triangular anti-aliasing filter and downsampling by
|
72 |
|
73 |
|
74 |
- **Spatial:** This metric assesses the spatial alignment between SR and LR images, utilizing the Phase Correlation
|
75 |
Coefficient (PCC) by default. Some SR models introduce spatial shifts, which this metric detects. The SR image is downsampled
|
76 |
-
to LR resolution using a triangular anti-aliasing filter and downsampling by
|
77 |
|
78 |
We propose three metrics to evaluate the high-frequency details introduced by SR models. The sum of these metrics always equals 1:
|
79 |
|
80 |
-
- **im_score:** This metric quantifies the
|
81 |
-
closely corresponds to the HR image.
|
82 |
|
83 |
-
- **om_score:** This metric measures the
|
84 |
-
closely compares the LR image downsampled with bilinear interpolation.
|
85 |
|
86 |
-
- **ha_score:** This metric evaluates the
|
87 |
-
SR model deviates significantly from both references.
|
88 |
|
89 |
|
90 |
|
91 |
-
## **
|
92 |
|
93 |
We are planning two experiments for both x4 and x2 scale factors. Participants are encouraged to submit their SR models
|
94 |
for both scales. Additionally, models designed solely for the x4 scale will be assessed at the x2 scale by downsampling
|
@@ -97,21 +118,22 @@ the SR image by a factor of 2.
|
|
97 |
In each experiment, we will employ two distinct approaches to evaluate the high-frequency details introduced by SR models.
|
98 |
The first approach utilizes the Mean Absolute Error (MAE) as the distance metric for assessing high-frequency details.
|
99 |
Alternatively, the second approach employs LPIPS. While MAE is sensitive to the intensity of high-frequency details,
|
100 |
-
LPIPS is more sensitized to their structural
|
101 |
understanding of the high-frequency details introduced by SR models. LPIPS metrics are consistently run on 32x32 patches
|
102 |
of the HR image, while MAE is computed on 2x2 patches for x2 scale and 4x4 patches for x4 scale evaluations.
|
103 |
|
104 |
-
## **Teams**
|
105 |
-
|
106 |
-
TODO
|
107 |
|
|
|
108 |
|
109 |
-
## **Work plan**
|
110 |
|
|
|
111 |
|
112 |
-
- Each team will submit their SR models up to the deadline
|
113 |
|
114 |
-
- We will have two different types of models: **open-source** and **closed-source**.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
115 |
|
116 |
- The submission will be made through a [pull request](https://huggingface.co/docs/hub/en/repositories-pull-requests-discussions) to this repository. The pull request **MUST** include the `metadata.json` file and the results in GeoTIFF format. The results must be in the same resolution as the HR image.
|
117 |
We expect the following information in the metadata.json file:
|
@@ -129,13 +151,26 @@ We expect the following information in the metadata.json file:
|
|
129 |
}
|
130 |
```
|
131 |
|
132 |
-
- The
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
133 |
|
134 |
-
-
|
135 |
|
136 |
-
-
|
137 |
|
138 |
-
-
|
139 |
|
140 |
- The paper will be prepared in overleaf, and all the participants will be invited to contribute to it.
|
141 |
|
|
|
12 |
- super-resolution
|
13 |
---
|
14 |
|
15 |
+
# **SUPERIX: Super-Resolution Intercomparison Exercise**
|
16 |
|
17 |
|
18 |
|
19 |
## **Introduction**
|
20 |
|
21 |
+
Super-resolution (SR) techniques are becoming more popular in improving the spatial resolution of freely
|
22 |
+
available satellite imagery, such as Sentinel-2 and Landsat. SR could significantly
|
23 |
improve the accuracy of various remote sensing downstream tasks, including road detection, crop delineation,
|
24 |
+
and object recognition. However, some researchers argue that the benefits of SR are primarily aesthetic,
|
25 |
+
suggesting that its main value lies in creating more visually appealing maps or aiding in visual interpretation.
|
|
|
26 |
|
27 |
Another criticism of SR is that it can degrade the original input data, potentially leading to incorrect conclusions.
|
28 |
However, some SR methods appear more conservative than others in preserving reflectance integrity. Given this,
|
|
|
30 |
such benchmarks, it remains difficult to conclusively determine the true impact of SR techniques on remote sensing data.
|
31 |
|
32 |
To establish a reliable framework, we propose the creation of a dedicated working group aimed at intercomparing super-resolution
|
33 |
+
algorithms for Sentinel-2 data (SUPERIX). SR algorithms developed by teams from universities, research centers, industry,
|
34 |
+
and space agencies are encouraged to participate in SUPERIX. This initiative will use OpenSR-test datasets and proposed metrics
|
35 |
to evaluate the consistency with the original input data and the reliability of the high-frequency details introduced by the
|
36 |
SR models.
|
37 |
|
38 |
+
Summarizing, multiple methods have been developed to address the problem of super-resolution in satellite imagery,
|
39 |
+
but very few studies were carried out to quantitatively inter-compare state-of-the-art methods in this domain.
|
40 |
+
|
41 |
+
- SUPERIX aims at inter-comparing SR algorithms for ESA Sentinel-2 mission.
|
42 |
+
- SUPERIX will involve defining reference datasets, metrics and an analysis framework.
|
43 |
+
- SUPERIX should allow to identify strengths and weaknesses of existing algorithms and potential areas of improvements.
|
44 |
+
|
45 |
+
|
46 |
+
## **Teams and SR Algorithms**
|
47 |
+
|
48 |
+
Are you interested? Contact us!
|
49 |
+
|
50 |
+
|
51 |
+
## **Validation Datasets**
|
52 |
+
|
53 |
+
Accurate validation datasets will allow a detailed analysis of SR strengths and weaknesses.
|
54 |
+
|
55 |
+
Validation datasets might vary in the way they are sampled and generated:
|
56 |
+
- cross-sensor or synthetic
|
57 |
+
- spatial scale factor
|
58 |
+
- geographical distribution
|
59 |
+
|
60 |
+
Performance of SR algorithms will vary also depending on the reference dataset, which can be attributed to differences in
|
61 |
+
radiometry, spectral response, spatial alignment, effective spatial resolution, considered landscapes, etc.
|
62 |
|
63 |
About the high-resolution (HR) reference, we are considering:
|
64 |
|
65 |
+
- **naip:** A set of 62 RGBNIR orthophotos mainly from agricultural and forest regions in the USA.
|
66 |
- **spot:** A set of 10 SPOT images obtained from Worldstrat.
|
67 |
+
- **spain_urban:** A set of 20 RGBNIR orthophotos, primarily from urban areas of Spain, including roads.
|
68 |
+
- **spain_crops:** A set of 20 RGBNIR orthophotos, primarily taken from agricultural areas near cities in Spain.
|
69 |
- **venus:** A set of 60 VENµS images obtained from SEN2VENµS.
|
70 |
|
71 |
+
Each HR reference includes the corresponding Sentinel-2 imagery preprocessed at 1C and 2A levels. Here is an example of how
|
72 |
to load each dataset.
|
73 |
|
74 |
```{python}
|
|
|
79 |
```
|
80 |
|
81 |
|
82 |
+
## **Quality Metrics**
|
|
|
83 |
|
84 |
We propose the following metrics to assess the consistency of SR models:
|
85 |
|
86 |
+
- **Reflectance:** This metric evaluates how SR affects the reflectance of the LR image, utilizing the Mean Absolute
|
87 |
Error (MAE) distance by default. Lower values indicate better reflectance consistency. The SR image is downsampled to LR
|
88 |
+
resolution using a triangular anti-aliasing filter and downsampling by the scale factor (bilinear interpolation).
|
89 |
|
90 |
- **Spectral:** This metric measures how SR impacts the spectral signature of the LR image, employing the Spectral Angle
|
91 |
Distance (SAM) by default. Lower values indicate better spectral consistency, with angles measured in degrees. The SR image
|
92 |
+
is downsampled to LR resolution using a triangular anti-aliasing filter and downsampling by the scale factor (bilinear interpolation).
|
93 |
|
94 |
|
95 |
- **Spatial:** This metric assesses the spatial alignment between SR and LR images, utilizing the Phase Correlation
|
96 |
Coefficient (PCC) by default. Some SR models introduce spatial shifts, which this metric detects. The SR image is downsampled
|
97 |
+
to LR resolution using a triangular anti-aliasing filter and downsampling by the scale factor (bilinear interpolation).
|
98 |
|
99 |
We propose three metrics to evaluate the high-frequency details introduced by SR models. The sum of these metrics always equals 1:
|
100 |
|
101 |
+
- **Improvements (im_score):** This metric quantifies the similarity between the SR and HR images.
|
102 |
+
A value closer to 1 indicates that the SR model closely corresponds to the HR image (i.e. improves the high-frequency details).
|
103 |
|
104 |
+
- **Omissions (om_score):** This metric measures the similarity between the SR and LR images. A value closer to 1 suggests that the SR model
|
105 |
+
closely compares the LR image downsampled with bilinear interpolation (i.e. omits high-frequency details present in HR but not in LR).
|
106 |
|
107 |
+
- **Halucinations (ha_score):** This metric evaluates the similarity between SR and the HR and LR images. A value closer to 1 indicates that the
|
108 |
+
SR model deviates significantly from both references (i.e. hallucinates introducing high-frequency details not present in HR).
|
109 |
|
110 |
|
111 |
|
112 |
+
## **Proposed Experiments**
|
113 |
|
114 |
We are planning two experiments for both x4 and x2 scale factors. Participants are encouraged to submit their SR models
|
115 |
for both scales. Additionally, models designed solely for the x4 scale will be assessed at the x2 scale by downsampling
|
|
|
118 |
In each experiment, we will employ two distinct approaches to evaluate the high-frequency details introduced by SR models.
|
119 |
The first approach utilizes the Mean Absolute Error (MAE) as the distance metric for assessing high-frequency details.
|
120 |
Alternatively, the second approach employs LPIPS. While MAE is sensitive to the intensity of high-frequency details,
|
121 |
+
LPIPS is more sensitized to their structural differences. Contrasting the outcomes of these two metrics can offer a comprehensive
|
122 |
understanding of the high-frequency details introduced by SR models. LPIPS metrics are consistently run on 32x32 patches
|
123 |
of the HR image, while MAE is computed on 2x2 patches for x2 scale and 4x4 patches for x4 scale evaluations.
|
124 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
125 |
|
126 |
+
## **Proposed Protocol**
|
127 |
|
|
|
128 |
|
129 |
+
- The SUPERIX working group should first agree on the validation datasets appropriate for SR, the definition of best quality metrics, and how quantify hallucinations.
|
130 |
|
131 |
+
- Each team will submit their SR models up to the deadline.
|
132 |
|
133 |
+
- We will have two different types of models: **open-source** and **closed-source**.
|
134 |
+
To be considered open-source, the code must be available in this repository within a folder named as the model name.
|
135 |
+
Keep the code as simple as possible. See examples using torch, diffuser, and tensorflow libraries [here](), [here](), and [here]().
|
136 |
+
The closed-source models are required to **only provide the results in GeoTIFF format**. See an example [here]().
|
137 |
|
138 |
- The submission will be made through a [pull request](https://huggingface.co/docs/hub/en/repositories-pull-requests-discussions) to this repository. The pull request **MUST** include the `metadata.json` file and the results in GeoTIFF format. The results must be in the same resolution as the HR image.
|
139 |
We expect the following information in the metadata.json file:
|
|
|
151 |
}
|
152 |
```
|
153 |
|
154 |
+
- The SUPERIX working group will evaluate the SR models after the deadline using the metrics discussed above.
|
155 |
+
|
156 |
+
- After the metrics estimation, we will first independently contact the teams providing the results. If there are any issues with
|
157 |
+
the submission, we will ask for clarification, and the team will have up to two weeks to provide the necessary corrections.
|
158 |
+
|
159 |
+
- Questions and discussions will be held in the discussion section of this [repository](https://huggingface.co/isp-uv-es/superIX/discussions).
|
160 |
+
The progress of the SUPERIX working group will be informed through the discussion section and by email.
|
161 |
+
|
162 |
+
- After all the participants have provided the necessary corrections, the results will be published in the discussion section of this repository.
|
163 |
+
|
164 |
+
|
165 |
+
## **Expected Outcomes**
|
166 |
+
|
167 |
+
- No clear superiority of any methodology in all metrics is expected.
|
168 |
|
169 |
+
- Analysis on validation scenes with major discrepancies between algorithms will be carried out.
|
170 |
|
171 |
+
- A dedicated website and a technical report will be prepared to present the results and recommendations.
|
172 |
|
173 |
+
- A research publication will be submitted to a remote sensing journal.
|
174 |
|
175 |
- The paper will be prepared in overleaf, and all the participants will be invited to contribute to it.
|
176 |
|