As a pivotal task that bridges remote visual and linguistic understanding, Remote Sensing Image-Text Retrieval (RSITR) has attracted considerable research interest in recent years. However, almost all RSITR methods implicitly assume that image-text pairs are matched perfectly. In practice, acquiring a large set of well-aligned data pairs is often prohibitively expensive or even infeasible. In addition, we also notice that the remote sensing datasets (e.g., RSITMD) truly contain some inaccurate or mismatched image text descriptions. Based on the above observations, we reveal an important but untouched problem in RSITR, i.e., Noisy Correspondence (NC). To overcome these challenges, we propose a novel Robust Remote Sensing Image-Text Retrieval (RRSITR) paradigm that designs a self-paced learning strategy to mimic human cognitive learning patterns, thereby learning from easy to hard from multi-modal data with NC. Specifically, we first divide all training sample pairs into three categories based on the loss magnitude of each pair, i.e., clean sample pairs, ambiguous sample pairs, and noisy sample pairs. Then, we respectively estimate the reliability of each training pair by assigning a weight to each pair based on the values of the loss. Further, we respectively design a new multi-modal self-paced function to dynamically regulate the training sequence and weights of the samples, thus establishing a progressive learning process. Finally, for noisy sample pairs, we present a robust triplet loss to dynamically adjust the soft margin based on semantic similarity, thereby enhancing the robustness against noise. Extensive experiments on three popular benchmark datasets demonstrate that the proposed RRSITR significantly outperforms the state-of-the-art methods, especially in high noise rates. The code is available at: https://github.com/MSFLabX/RRSITR
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Representative examples of noise correspondence problems that really exist in the RSITMD dataset, wherein the sample pair is erroneously assumed to be semantically aligned. Since the model lacks explicit knowledge of which sample pairs are noisy during training, such incorrect supervision signals inevitably weaken retrieval performance. (a) and (b) represent clean sample pairs and noisy mismatched ones, respectively.
Figure 2: The overview of RRSITR. Specifically, we first achieve fine-grained alignment by both global and local contrastive learning. Based on contrastive loss magnitude, training pairs are categorized into clean, ambiguous, and noisy. A multimodal self-paced learning strategy then dynamically weights clean and ambiguous pairs, enabling progressive learning from easy to hard correspondences. For noisy pairs, a robust triplet loss enhances model robustness and retrieval performance.
Noise
Method
Ref.
Image-to-Text Retrieval
Text-to-Image Retrieval
mR
R@1
R@5
R@10
R@1
R@5
R@10
20%
AMFMN
TGRS’22
9.56±1.17
26.90±2.02
39.29±1.96
7.66±0.78
31.19±0.49
51.42±0.94
27.67±0.93
HVSA
TGRS’23
7.87±0.99
23.54±1.52
34.87±2.72
6.35±0.29
27.57±0.71
47.46±1.03
24.61±0.74
KAMCL
TGRS’23
10.80±0.89
27.17±1.08
39.87±1.32
9.59±0.61
34.04±0.65
51.23±1.15
28.78±0.76
SWAN
ICMR’23
9.29±2.28
24.25±1.38
37.43±2.55
7.44±0.45
30.93±0.84
52.71±0.92
27.01±0.81
PIR
ACMMM’23
10.09±1.66
29.25±1.69
44.95±1.19
8.74±0.89
33.45±1.25
54.04±1.06
30.09±0.89
Table 1: Image-text retrieval performance under different noise ratios on the RSITMD dataset.
Noise
Method
Ref.
Image-to-Text Retrieval
Text-to-Image Retrieval
mR
R@1
R@5
R@10
R@1
R@5
R@10
20%
AMFMN
TGRS’22
4.68±0.33
15.08±0.48
24.99±1.12
4.08±0.10
16.31±0.64
27.65±0.83
15.47±0.34
HVSA
TGRS’23
4.76±0.40
14.93±0.69
25.21±1.33
2.85±0.29
13.15±0.67
24.85±1.00
14.29±0.49
KAMCL
TGRS’23
7.59±0.79
20.48±0.57
31.31±0.41
5.75±0.23
21.38±0.46
34.70±0.66
20.20±0.28
SWAN
ICMR’23
4.50±0.62
13.76±0.82
22.71±1.04
3.45±0.21
15.43±0.85
28.54±0.69
14.73±0.25
PIR
ACMMM’23
7.36±0.38
20.29±0.64
31.64±1.46
5.41±0.32
20.68±0.32
34.84±0.85
20.04±0.50
Table 2: Image-text retrieval performance under different noise ratios on the RSICD dataset.
Noise
Method
Ref.
Image-to-Text Retrieval
Text-to-Image Retrieval
mR
R@1
R@5
R@10
R@1
R@5
R@10
20%
AMFMN
TGRS’22
5.47±0.24
21.99±0.79
36.89±0.73
4.47±0.24
18.66±0.23
31.97±0.32
19.91±0.38
HVSA
TGRS’23
2.80±0.34
10.97±0.34
19.92±0.50
1.68±0.07
7.96±0.20
15.50±0.17
9.81±0.18
KAMCL
TGRS’23
14.01±0.47
43.13±0.61
60.81±0.67
9.12±0.15
30.40±0.29
46.23±0.36
33.95±0.34
SWAN
ICMR’23
2.42±0.20
11.43±0.59
20.98±0.41
2.72±0.12
11.85±0.23
21.69±0.49
11.85±0.20
PIR
ACMMM’23
10.61±0.30
37.13±0.88
56.07±0.47
7.55±0.20
27.57±0.24
43.30±0.32
30.37±0.30
Table 3: Image-text retrieval performance under different noise ratios on the NWPU dataset.
Method
Image-to-Text Retrieval
Text-to-Image Retrieval
mR
R@1
R@5
R@10
R@1
R@5
R@10
#1
15.44
31.64
45.49
11.99
38.13
57.57
33.38
#2
12.08
27.79
39.42
10.29
35.47
53.73
29.80
#3
13.94
29.20
40.66
11.96
34.84
50.64
30.21
#4
13.76
30.22
43.36
11.88
37.50
56.72
32.24
#5
0.18
0.97
1.64
0.36
1.42
2.76
1.22
Table 4: Ablation studies on RSITMD with 80% noise ratio.
Figure 3: Density versus weight of all sample pairs on RSITMD during training at the 1st epoch (left) and the 50th epoch (right).
Figure 4: Parameters analysis (i.e., λ1 and λ2 ) on RSITMD.