Hierarchical multi-label classification (HMLC) is essential for modeling complex label dependencies in remote sensing. Existing methods, however, struggle with multi-path hierarchies where instances belong to multiple branches, and they rarely exploit unlabeled data. We introduce HELM (Hierarchical and Explicit Label Modeling), a novel framework that overcomes these limitations. HELM: (i) uses hierarchy-specific class tokens within a Vision Transformer to capture nuanced label interactions; (ii) employs graph convolutional networks to explicitly encode the hierarchical structure and generate hierarchy-aware embeddings; and (iii) integrates a self-supervised branch to effectively leverage unlabeled imagery. We perform a comprehensive evaluation on four remote sensing image (RSI) datasets (UCM, AID, DFC-15, MLRSNet). HELM achieves state-of-the-art performance, consistently outperforming strong baselines in both supervised and semi-supervised settings, demonstrating particular strength in low-label scenarios.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: High-level overview of HELM. The framework integrates a ViT encoder with hierarchy-specific tokens that feed three distinct branches: (a) classification, (b) graph learning with a GCN, and (c) a BYOL self-supervised branch. The losses from each branch are combined to optimize the model end-to-end.
Loss Components
AU PRC ( ↑ )
Ranking Loss ( ↓ )
Method
Ls
Lg
Lb
UCM
AID
DFC-15
MLRSNet
UCM
AID
DFC-15
MLRSNet
MLC
✓
0.863
0.767
0.967
0.838
0.031
0.025
0.010
0.039
HMLC
✓
0.890
0.827
0.971
0.863
0.031
0.021
0.008
0.027
HELM g
✓
✓
0.899
0.842
0.979
0.869
0.024
0.019
0.007
0.025
HELM b
✓
✓
0.885
0.852
0.969
0.873
0.029
0.019
0.012
0.025
HELM
✓
✓
✓
0.904
0.849
0.977
0.871
0.022
0.017
0.006
0.024
Table 1: Performance comparison with loss components. Best in bold , second-best underlined .
Figure 2: Semi-supervised results with different labeled proportions. HELM consistently outperforms the supervised baseline, with the largest gains at 1–5% labeled data. Full results are available in Appendix A.2 .
AU PRC ( ↑ )
Ranking Loss ( ↓ )
Method
UCM
AID
DFC-15
MLRSNet
UCM
AID
DFC-15
MLRSNet
C-HMCNN [ 8 ]
0.834
0.764
0.962
0.792
0.038
0.024
0.012
0.041
HiMulConE [ 9 ]
0.843
0.770
0.970
0.865
0.031
0.020
0.006
0.035
HMI [ 20 ]
0.661
0.647
0.923
0.437
0.080
0.073
0.043
0.138
HELM (Ours)
0.904
0.849
0.977
0.871
0.022
0.017
0.006
0.025
Table 2: Comparison with state-of-the-art HMLC methods in the supervised setting. Best in bold , second-best underlined .
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
N
Ntrain
Ntest
∣L∣
Card @Level
Dens @Level
Dataset
1
2
3
4
ℓ
h
1
2
3
4
ℓ
h
1
2
3
4
ℓ
h
UCM
2,100
1,667
433
4
9
17
-
17
30
1.74
3.03
3.19
-
3.19
7.96
0.44
0.34
0.19
-
0.19
0.27
AID
3,000
2,400
600
4
9
17
-
17
30
2.18
4.51
4.93
-
4.93
11.62
0.54
0.50
0.29
-
0.29
0.39
DFC-15
3,341
2,672
669
3
7
8
-
8
17
1.61
2.73
2.80
-
2.80
6.83
0.54
0.39
0.35
-
0.35
0.40
MLRSNet
109,151
87,336
21,815
7
15
22
60
60
104
2.21
3.62
4.41
6.10
6.10
15.25
0.32
0.24
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.16
Appendix
Table 3: Comprehensive statistics for remote sensing datasets. N denotes total images; Ntrain and Ntest represent training and test set sizes. ∣L∣ indicates the number of unique labels at each hierarchical level (1 to 4), where ℓ corresponds to the leaf level and h refers to the total number of labels across all levels. Card @Level is the average number of active labels per image at that level (label cardinality), and Dens @Level is the mean per-label prevalence at that level (label density).
Method Variant
Notation
Ls
Lg
Lb
Task
MLC Baseline
MLC
✓
{SL}
HMLC Baseline
HMLC
✓
{SL}
HELM (Graph-only)
HELM g
✓
✓
{SL, SSL}
HELM (BYOL-only)
HELM b
✓
✓
{SL, SSL}
HELM (Full)
HELM
✓
✓
✓
{SL, SSL}
Appendix
Table 4: HELM variants and baseline methods with their loss component configurations for systematic evaluation.
AU PRC(↑)
UCM
AID
DFC-15
MLRSNet
Avg. ranks
N (%)
N (%)
N (%)
N (%)
N (%)
Methods
1
5
10
25
1
5
10
25
1
5
10
25
1
5
10
25
1
5
10
25
HMLC Baseline
0.268
0.357
0.479
0.691
0.366
0.410
0.382
0.564
0.481
0.619
0.692
0.766
0.470
0.643
0.716
0.787
3.3
3.8
3.5
3.8
HELM b
0.290
0.554
0.656
0.770
0.362
0.461
0.557
0.671
0.522
0.717
0.824
0.909
0.380
0.643
0.709
0.788
3.3
3.0
3.0
2.8
HELM g
0.269
0.532
0.714
0.799
0.375
0.485
0.597
0.680
0.619
0.792
0.875
0.916
0.422
0.657
0.707
0.781
2.5
2.0
2.5
2.5
HELM
0.335
0.651
0.730
0.807
0.390
0.533
0.631
0.701
0.659
0.790
0.885
0.934
0.557
0.666
0.743
0.816
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
Appendix
Table 5: Evaluation of HELM’s individual loss components in the semi-supervised learning setting compared to the supervised HMLC baseline. Models are trained with varying proportions of labeled data and evaluated on a fixed test set. Results are reported using AU PRC (higher is better) and Ranking Loss (lower is better), averaged over three runs. The best performance for each dataset and labeled data proportion is highlighted in bold.
Figure 4: Comparison of training times, performance, and parameter counts for the baseline methods and HELM on the UCM dataset. The size of each bubble corresponds to the number of parameters (in millions).
Figure 5: Comparison of 2-D UMAP embeddings between HELM and state-of-the-art methods for the UCM dataset. The learned embeddings are colored based on different levels of the UCM label hierarchy. The visualization is based on embeddings corresponding to leaf labels, while the color coding reflects the grouping and relationships at each hierarchical level. The NMI values are reported for each method, where higher values indicate better alignment between clusters and ground truth labels, reflecting the quality of hierarchical embeddings.
Hierarchical multi-label classification (HMLC) is essential for modeling structured label dependencies in remote sensing. Yet existing approaches struggle in multi-path settings, where images may activate multiple taxonomic branches, leading to underuse of hierarchical information. We propose MAPLE (Multi-Path Adaptive Propagation with Level-Aware Embeddings), a framework that integrates (i) hierarchical semantic initialization from graph-aware textual descriptions, (ii) graph-based structure encoding via graph convolutional networks (GCNs), and (iii) adaptive multi-modal fusion that dynamically balances semantic priors and visual evidence. An adaptive level-aware objective automatically selects appropriate losses per hierarchy level. Evaluations on CORINE-aligned remote sensing datasets (AID, DFC-15, and MLRSNet) show consistent improvements of up to +42% in few-shot regimes while adding only 2.6% parameter overhead, demonstrating that MAPLE effectively and efficiently models hierarchical semantics for Earth observation (EO).
Boshko Koloski, Marjan Stoimchev, Jurica Levatić +2
Jožef Stefan Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia · Jožef Stefan International Postgraduate School, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Deep learning has become increasingly important in remote sensing image classification due to its ability to extract semantic information from complex data. Classification tasks often include predefined label hierarchies that represent the semantic relationships among classes. However, these hierarchies are frequently overlooked, and most approaches focus only on fine-grained classification schemes. In this paper, we present a novel Semantics-Aware Hierarchical Consensus (SAHC) approach that integrates hierarchical-level-specific classification heads within a deep network architecture and combines their output through cross-level probability projectors. Direct and projected predictions are fused into a geometric consensus distribution, which is used for self-consistent training and optional hierarchy-aware inference. This mechanism acts as a geometric ensemble that leverages the inherent structure of the hierarchical classification task. The projectors are initialized from the user-defined taxonomy (i.e., the hierarchical label structure), and can be adaptively refined during optimization. The proposed SAHC method is evaluated on two benchmark datasets with different degrees of hierarchical complexity on different tasks, considering varying spectral and spatial resolutions. Experimental results show both the effectiveness of the proposed approach in guiding network learning and the robustness of the hierarchical consensus for remote sensing image classification tasks. The source code is available at https://github.com/rslab-unitrento/sahc.
Giulio Weikmann, Gianmarco Perantoni, Lorenzo Bruzzone
Department of Information Engineering and Computer Science, University of Trento, 38123 Trento, Italy
Understanding multi-label images remains a challenging task in computer vision. With the rapid progress of vision-language multimodal learning, vision-language models (VLMs) enable zero-shot recognition without labeled data. However, due to their intrinsic design, these models often prioritize the most iconic object and omit other contextual positives. This intrinsic bias conflicts with the nature of multi-label learning, thereby limiting their applicability. In this work, we propose an unsupervised framework that adapts VLMs from iconic recognition toward inclusive understanding, enabling label-free multi-label image recognition. Our approach consists of two key stages, cutting'' and sewing'': In the cutting stage, we present the multi-sampling response estimator to prevent the model from concentrating only on one single object. In the second sewing stage, the multi-object blend adaptation is introduced to adjust the labels to better conform to the multi-label distribution while preserving the intrinsic characteristics of the original model within only one epoch. Extensive experiments show that our framework significantly outperforms existing unsupervised approaches on four public datasets, even surpassing several representative weakly supervised baselines. These results demonstrate the potential of adapting pre-trained VLMs for more comprehensive visual understanding without manual annotations. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/iCVTEAM/TailorCLIP.
Cheng Chen, Jingyu Zhou, Yifan Zhao +1
State Key Laboratory of Virtual Reality Technology and Systems, SCSE & QRI, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China.