4.7 Article

Application of Improved Instance Segmentation Algorithm Based on VoVNet-v2 in Open-Pit Mines Remote Sensing Pre-Survey

期刊

REMOTE SENSING
卷 14, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs14112626

关键词

open-pit mine detection; remote sensing pre-survey; instance segmentation; VoVNet-v2; high-resolution satellite image

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [42071429, 41871355, 62071439]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The traditional manual interpretation method for mine remote sensing pre-survey is subjective and time-consuming. To improve the efficiency and reduce labor costs, two improved instance segmentation models are proposed. The evaluation on different satellite image datasets shows that the improved models outperform the traditional method in mine detection tasks.
The traditional mine remote sensing information pre-survey is mainly based on manual interpretation, and interpreters delineate the mine boundary shape. This work is difficult and susceptible to subjective judgment due to the large differences in the characteristics of mining complex within individuals and small differences between individuals. CondInst-VoV and BlendMask-VoV, based on VoVNet-v2, are two improved instance segmentation models proposed to improve the efficiency of mine remote sensing pre-survey and minimize labor expenses. In Hubei Province, China, Gaofen satellite fusion images, true-color satellite images, false-color satellite images, and Tianditu images are gathered to create a Key Open-pit Mine Acquisition Areas (KOMMA) dataset to assess the efficacy of mine detection models. In addition, regional detection was carried out in Daye Town. The result shows that the performance of improved models on the KOMMA dataset exceeds the baseline as well as the verification accuracy of manual interpretation in regional mine detection tasks. In addition, CondInst-VoV has the best performance on Tianditu image, reaching 88.816% in positioning recall and 98.038% in segmentation accuracy.

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