4.7 Article

End-to-End Airport Detection in Remote Sensing Images Combining Cascade Region Proposal Networks and Multi-Threshold Detection Networks

期刊

REMOTE SENSING
卷 10, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs10101516

关键词

airport detection; remote sensing images; region-based convolutional neural networks; divide and conquer; integral loss; hard example mining

资金

  1. Aeronautical Science Foundation of China [20175896022]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fast and accurate airport detection in remote sensing images is important for many military and civilian applications. However, traditional airport detection methods have low detection rates, high false alarm rates and slow speeds. Due to the power convolutional neural networks in object-detection systems, an end-to-end airport detection method based on convolutional neural networks is proposed in this study. First, based on the common low-level visual features of natural images and airport remote sensing images, region-based convolutional neural networks are chosen to conduct transfer learning for airport images using a limited amount of data. Second, to further improve the detection rate and reduce the false alarm rate, the concepts of divide and conquer and integral loss'' are introduced to establish cascade region proposal networks and multi-threshold detection networks, respectively. Third, hard example mining is used to improve the object discrimination ability and the training efficiency of the network during sample training. Additionally, a cross-optimization strategy is employed to achieve convolution layer sharing between the cascade region proposal networks and the subsequent multi-threshold detection networks, and this approach significantly decreases the detection time. The results show that the method established in this study can accurately detect various types of airports in complex backgrounds with a higher detection rate, lower false alarm rate, and shorter detection time than existing airport detection methods.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据