Organizations: Institute of Geospatial Information, Information Engineering University, Zhengzhou, China · Academy of Digital China (Fujian), Fuzhou University, Fuzhou, China · The School of Electronics and Communication Engineering, Sun Yat-sen University, Shenzhen, China · The Department of Information Engineering and Computer Science, University of Trento, Trento, Italy
Multimodal change detection (MMCD) identifies changed areas in multimodal remote sensing data, demonstrating significant application value in land use monitoring and urban sustainable development. However, literature MMCD approaches exhibit limitations in both cross-modal interaction and exploiting modality-specific characteristics. This leads to insufficient modeling of fine-grained change information, thus hindering the precise detection of semantic changes. To address these problems, we propose STSF-Net, a framework designed for MMCD between optical and SAR images. STSF-Net jointly models modality-specific and spatio-temporal common features to enhance change representations. Specifically, modality-specific features are exploited to capture genuine semantic change signals, while spatio-temporal common features are embedded to suppress pseudo-changes caused by differences in imaging mechanisms. Furthermore, we introduce an optical and SAR feature fusion strategy that adaptively adjusts multimodal feature importance based on semantic priors obtained from visual foundation models. Finally, we introduce the novel Delta-SN6 dataset, the first openly-accessible multiclass MMCD benchmark consisting of very-high-resolution fully polarimetric SAR and optical images. Experimental results on Delta-SN6, BRIGHT, and Wuhan datasets demonstrate that our method outperforms the state-of-the-art by 3.21%, 0.87%, and 1.32% in mIoU, respectively.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: An overview of the proposed OSCD architecture. It contains three core steps: (i) modality-specific feature extraction, (ii) spatio-temporal common feature alignment and (iii) multimodal feature fusion guided by change priors.
Fig. 2: Details of the Modal-specific feature Extractor.
Fig. 3: Extraction of cross-modal common features with spatio-temporal correlations.
Fig. 4: Workflow for fusing modality-specific and common features guided by change priors.
Dataset
Modality
Resolution
Image Size
Temporal Span
Change Category
BRIGHT
SAR-optical
0.3-1 m
1024×1024
2014-2020
Building
Wuhan
SAR-optical
2-10 m
256×256
2015-2022
Building, Road
Delta-SN6
SAR-optical optical-optical
0.5 m
900×900
2007-2019
Building, Road, Water
Table 1: Comparison of Delta-SN6 with existing OSCD datasets
Fig. 5: The Delta-SN6 dataset provides multimodal and multi-temporal remote sensing images along with ground truth labels, designed for the OSCD task.
Method
Reference
Recall
Precision
OA
F1bcd
mIoU
DeepLabV3+
ECCV’18
52.80
54.54
87.25
53.66
61.45
SiamCRNN
TGRS’20
48.65
33.49
79.30
39.67
51.27
SiamAttnUNet
ISPRS’21
53.53
58.18
88.12
55.76
62.91
DTCDN
ISPRS’21
58.03
42.90
83.32
49.33
57.30
ChangeOS
RSE’21
42.80
57.42
87.56
49.04
59.63
ICIF-Net
TGRS’22
44.41
58.13
86.08
50.35
57.84
Table 2: Evaluation of OSCD accuracy results ( % ) on the Wuhan dataset. The best and second-best results are in bold and underlined, respectively.
Fig. 6: Qualitative results provided by different methods in the testing areas (a)-(d) on the Wuhan dataset.
Methods
F1bcd
F1clf
OA
mIoU
IoU per class
Background
Intact
Damaged
Destroyed
UNet
86.01
62.94
94.60
59.22
95.46
67.35
28.44
45.63
DeepLabV3+
82.61
70.33
93.60
59.37
94.82
63.96
32.19
46.53
SiamCRNN
88.77
68.71
95.42
63.37
96.32
71.45
35.06
50.67
SiamAttnUNet
87.21
70.22
94.99
62.82
95.83
69.45
36.03
49.96
ChangeOS
89.60
71.88
95.84
65.98
96.54
73.85
38.99
54.53
Table 3: Evaluation of building damage accuracy results ( % ) of different methods on the BRIGHT dataset.
Fig. 7: Qualitative results provided by different methods in the testing areas (a)-(d) on the BRIGHT dataset.
Methods
F1bcd
F1clf
OA
mIoU
IoU per class
BG
AB
AR
AW
DB
DR
DW
UNet
83.28
26.37
98.53
53.44
98.54
62.10
57.89
77.47
78.09
0.00
0.00
DeepLabV3+
90.83
22.32
98.58
51.88
98.58
64.21
29.04
73.57
78.87
2.95
15.95
SiamCRNN
82.17
54.20
98.36
57.04
98.38
52.83
28.25
70.20
78.83
15.09
55.73
SiamAttnUNet
82.80
88.15
98.54
74.19
98.53
61.81
54.10
74.34
79.37
74.95
76.20
ChangeOS
78.57
86.53
98.10
66.92
98.13
55.83
43.02
67.59
71.69
61.16
71.01
Table 4: Evaluation of OSCD accuracy results ( % ) on the Delta-SN6 dataset. BG, AB, AR, AW, DB, DR and DW refer to background, added building, added road, added water, disappeared building, disappeared road and disappeared water, respectively.
Fig. 8: Qualitative results provided by different methods in the testing areas (a)-(d) on the Delta-SN6 dataset.
Methods
Proposed Module
BRIGHT Dataset (%)
Delta-SN6 Dataset (%)
FIM
GSFM
PGFFM
F1 bcd
F1 clf
OA
mIoU
F1 bcd
F1 clf
OA
mIoU
Baseline
×
×
×
88.14
70.87
95.39
63.99
79.83
87.46
98.34
71.42
STSF-Net-V1
✓
×
×
88.51
71.81
95.44
64.76
81.63
87.38
98.49
74.45
STSF-Net-V2
×
✓
×
88.85
72.21
95.73
65.52
89.75
90.88
99.17
85.87
STSF-Net-V3
×
×
✓
88.21
74.54
95.43
66.28
91.82
91.91
99.32
87.45
STSF-Net-V4
✓
✓
×
88.63
73.32
95.69
65.64
92.40
92.42
99.35
88.21
Table 5: Ablation study results ( % ) of the proposed modules on BRIGHT and Delta-SN6 datasets.
Fig. 9: Qualitative comparison of the OSCD results obtained using different network modules on the BRIGHT and Delta-SN6 datasets. STSF-Net-V1: baseline+FIM, STSF-Net-V2: baseline+GSFM, STSF-Net-V3: baseline+PGFFM, STSF-Net-V4: baseline+FIM+GSFM, STSF-Net-V5: baseline+FIM+PGFFM, STSF-Net-V6: baseline+GSFM+PGFFM.
Methods
Trainable Params (M)
F1bcd
F1clf
OA
mIoU
IoU per class
BG
AB
AR
AW
DB
DR
DW
Siamese SwinTransformer
56.58
91.76
95.05
99.31
87.82
99.31
78.37
76.14
91.26
89.28
90.15
90.24
Siamese SAM2
0.72
90.87
94.02
99.23
85.84
99.24
77.41
72.53
89.17
87.62
86.96
87.95
SAM2 + SwinTransformer
29.01
94.60
95.27
99.54
91.33
99.55
85.68
81.42
92.95
92.77
94.62
92.33
Table 6: Performance comparison of different encoder architectures on the Delta-SN6 dataset.
Fig. 10: Comparison of feature distributions of optical and SAR before and after STCFM processing.
Methods
BRIGHT Dataset
Delta-SN6 Dataset
F1bcd
F1clf
OA
mIoU
F1bcd
F1clf
OA
mIoU
STSF-Net(w/o. PGFFM)
88.63
73.32
95.69
65.64
89.63
93.27
99.12
84.93
STSF-Net(w. PGFFM with SAM)
89.74
73.37
95.95
66.86
92.72
95.09
99.37
88.16
STSF-Net(w. PGFFM with DINOv3)
88.85
73.21
95.90
66.72
93.11
92.65
99.40
88.51
STSF-Net(w. PGFFM with SAM2)
91.71
75.83
96.10
67.91
94.60
95.27
99.54
91.33
Table 7: Performance comparison of different methods on BRIGHT and Delta-SN6 datasets
Fig. 11: Visualized change in feature response intensity before and after PGFFM addition on BRIGHT and Delta-SN6 datasets.
Type
Methods
PGFFM
BRIGHT
Delta-SN6
F1bcd
F1clf
OA
mIoU
F1bcd
F1clf
OA
mIoU
CNN
SiamCRNN
×
88.77
68.71
95.42
63.37
89.44
92.93
99.11
83.82
SiamCRNN
✓
89.26
72.01
95.76
65.57
90.67
94.46
99.25
86.79
Transformer
DamageFormer
×
89.92
72.22
95.95
66.09
91.38
94.81
99.37
88.12
DamageFormer
✓
89.46
72.71
95.92
66.49
93.09
95.41
99.41
89.36
Mamba
GSTM-SCD
×
90.51
73.96
95.88
66.83
91.42
95.31
99.32
87.04
Table 8: Performance comparison of different methods with and without PGFFM on BRIGHT and Delta-SN6 datasets.
Fig. 12: Visualization of specific features, common features, and the fused change feature on the Delta-SN6 dataset.
Methods
Reference
Params (M)
FLOPs (G)
Inf. time (ms)
UNet
MICCAI’15
31.05
219.45
394.50
DeepLabV3+
ECCV’18
42.40
140.15
112.35
SiamAttnUNet
ISPRS’21
60.95
494.76
345.68
SiamCRNN
TGRS’20
54.37
135.02
118.78
DamageFormer
IGARSS’22
48.16
202.50
216.15
ChangeOS
RSE’21
50.60
117.53
11.7
Table 9: Comparison of computational efficiency for different methods.
Synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and optical imagery provide complementary structural and appearance information for remote sensing object detection. However, substantial cross-modal discrepancies and indiscriminate channel interaction inevitably introduce redundant or conflicting features. Since different feature channels encode heterogeneous semantic information and contribute unequally to cross-modal fusion, selectively highlighting task-relevant channels while suppressing redundant ones is essential. To address this issue, we propose the Channel Selective Interaction Fusion Network (CSIF-Net), which performs selective channel-level cross-modal interaction. CSIF-Net first employs a frequency decomposition module to construct frequency-aware SAR inputs, facilitating the separation of structural information from noise-related responses. It then models cross-modal channel relationships through a cross-attention channel selection module and dynamically partitions the features into shared and modality-specific components. Finally, a dual-branch fusion module performs cross-modal interaction and channel realignment for shared features while independently enhancing SAR-specific features, thereby exploiting complementary information and suppressing modality interference. Extensive experiments on the OGSOD 1.0 and M4-SAR datasets demonstrate that CSIF-Net achieves state-of-the-art performance in both horizontal and oriented object detection, surpassing the existing methods by 4.01% and 3.18% gains, respectively.
Haojie Li, Yuanfei Huang, Lingfei Song +2
School of Artificial Intelligence, Beijing Normal University · Beijing Key Laboratory of Artificial Intelligence for Education · Engineering Research Center of Intelligent Technology and Educational Application, Ministry of Education
Existing deep learning-based methods can capture shared features from optical and synthetic aperture radar (SAR) images for spatial alignment. However, optical-SAR registration remains challenging under large geometric deformations, because the model needs to simultaneously handle cross-modal appearance discrepancies and complex spatial transformations. To address this issue, this paper proposes a text semantic-assisted cross-modal image registration framework, named TAR, for optical and SAR images. TAR exploits text semantic priors from remote sensing scenes and land-cover categories to alleviate the modality gap and enhance cross-modal feature learning. TAR consists of three components: a multi-scale visual feature learning (MSFL) module, a text-assisted feature enhancement (TAFE) module, and a coarse-to-fine dense matching (CFDM) module. MSFL extracts multi-scale visual features from optical and SAR images. TAFE constructs text descriptors related to remote sensing scenes and land-cover objects, and uses a frozen RemoteCLIP text encoder to extract text features. These text features are introduced through visual-text interaction to enhance high-level visual features for more reliable coarse matching. CFDM then establishes coarse correspondences based on the enhanced high-level features and refines the matched locations using low-level features. Experimental results on cross-modal remote sensing images demonstrate the effectiveness of TAR, which achieves stronger matching performance than several state-of-the-art methods and yields significant gains under large geometric deformations.
Zhuoyu Cai, Dou Quan, Ning Huyan +3
Key Laboratory of Intelligent Perception and Image Understanding of Ministry of Education of China, School of Artificial Intelligence, Xidian University, Xi’an 710071, China
Single-source remote sensing object detection using optical or SAR images struggles in complex environments. Optical images offer rich textural details but are often affected by low-light, cloud-obscured, or low-resolution conditions, reducing the detection performance. SAR images are robust to weather, but suffer from speckle noise and limited semantic expressiveness. Optical and SAR images provide complementary advantages, and fusing them can significantly improve the detection accuracy. However, progress in this field is hindered by the lack of large-scale, standardized datasets. To address these challenges, we propose a new comprehensive dataset for optical-SAR fusion object detection, named Multi-resolution, Multi-polarization, Multi-scene, Multi-source SAR dataset (M4-SAR). It contains 112,174 instance-level aligned image pairs and nearly one million labeled instances with arbitrary orientations, spanning six key categories. To enable standardized evaluation, we develop a unified benchmarking toolkit that integrates six state-of-the-art multi-source fusion methods. Additionally, we propose E2E-OSDet, a novel end-to-end multi-source fusion detection framework that mitigates cross-domain discrepancies and establishes a robust baseline for future studies. Extensive experiments on M4-SAR demonstrate that fusing optical and SAR data can improve mAP by 5.7% over single-source inputs, with particularly significant gains in complex environments. The dataset and code are publicly available at https://github.com/wchao0601/M4-SAR.
Chao Wang, Wei Lu, Xiang Li +2
Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing 210094, China · Anhui University, Hefei 230601, China · Nankai University, Tianjin 300350, China