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 |
|