Change detection is a fundamental task in remote sensing, aiming to quantify the impacts of human activities and ecological dynamics on land-cover changes. Existing change detection methods are limited to predefined classes in training datasets, which constrains their scalability in real-world scenarios. In recent years, numerous advanced open-vocabulary semantic segmentation models have emerged for remote sensing imagery. However, there is still a lack of an effective framework for directly applying these models to open-vocabulary change detection (OVCD), a novel task that integrates vision and language to detect changes across arbitrary categories. To address these challenges, we first construct a category-agnostic change detection dataset, termed CA-CDD. Further, we design a category-agnostic change head to detect the transitions of arbitrary categories and index them to specific classes. Based on them, we propose Seg2Change, an adapter designed to adapt open-vocabulary semantic segmentation models to change detection task. Without bells and whistles, this simple yet effective framework achieves state-of-the-art OVCD performance (+9.52 IoU on WHU-CD and +5.50 mIoU on SECOND). Our code is released at https://github.com/yogurts-sy/Seg2Change.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Previous paradigms vs. our paradigm. Previous paradigms rely on change proposals and are constrained by the segmentation performance of the proposal generator. Meanwhile, both paradigms (a–b) distinguish changed instances using a predefined threshold, which makes it difficult to accurately delineate change boundaries. In contrast, our paradigm, based on category-agnostic change maps, can effectively leverage more powerful open-vocabulary segmentation models.
Figure 2. Visual comparison between predefined change category datasets (a) and our category-agnostic change detection dataset (b). The former focuses only on limited categories.
Figure 3. Annotation process of the category-agnostic change detection dataset. Regions where the category changes between the bi-temporal images are annotated as change maps. The actual recorded categories are not limited to those shown in the figure.
Figure 4. Category-Agnostic Change Head (CACH). Bi-temporal image features are extracted and processed through feature differences fusion and difference query modules to obtain calibrated discrepancies, which are then concatenated across multiple dimensions via our residual upsampler to produce the final category-agnostic change map.
Figure 6. Open-vocabulary building and land-cover change detection examples. In each group: images at T1 ( I1 ), T2 ( I2 ), labels, the results of DynamicEarth and our Seg2Change. Color rendering: "Building/Land-cover" .
Method
Identifier
Comparator
WHU-CD
LEVIR-CD
DSIFN
CLCD
F1 c
IoU c
Kappa
F1 c
IoU c
Kappa
F1 c
IoU c
Kappa
F1 c
IoU c
Kappa
PCA_KMeans ( Celik, 2009b )
/
KMeans ( Celik, 2009b )
14.33
7.72
0.0846
9.96
5.24
0.0116
35.48
21.57
0.1865
18.42
10.14
0.0780
CVA ( Bruzzone and Prieto, 2002 )
/
CVA Match ( Bruzzone and Prieto, 2002 )
7.17
3.72
0.0023
9.27
4.86
0.0017
27.88
16.20
0.0142
13.39
7.17
0.0017
DCVA ( Bergamasco et al., 2022 )
/
CVA Match ( Bruzzone and Prieto, 2002 )
20.55
11.45
0.1537
13.85
7.44
0.0507
38.52
23.85
0.1758
20.81
11.62
0.0918
UCD-SCM ( Tan et al., 2024 )
SAM
OTSU ( Otsu, 1979 )
32.13
19.14
0.2792
32.36
19.30
0.2734
40.13
25.10
0.2443
23.31
13.19
0.1522
AnyChange ( Zheng et al., 2024 )
SAM
Latent Match ( Zheng et al., 2024 )
28.13
16.37
0.2330
32.68
19.53
0.2672
39.19
24.37
0.2280
31.96
19.02
0.2342
Table 1. Performance comparison on binary OVCD datasets. † and ‡ denote the M – C – I and I – M – C configurations of DynamicEarth. * denotes the variants implemented with SegEarth-OV3 (SegE-OV3 for short). The best and the second-best results are, respectively, marked in BOLD and in underline . Except for Kappa, all results are expressed in percentage (%).
Figure 7. Open-vocabulary semantic change detection examples. In each group: images at T1 ( I1 ), T2 ( I2 ), labels, the results of DynamicEarth and our Seg2Change. Color rendering: "Building" , "Vegetation" , "Tree" , "Playground" , "Water" , "Bareland" .
Method
GPU Memory
Inference
SC-SCD
SECOND
Usage (GB) ↓
(ms/sample) ↓
mF1 c
mIoU c
mOA
mKappa
mF1 c
mIoU c
mOA
mKappa
UCD-SCM ( Tan et al., 2024 )
9.46 (100%)
3225 (100%)
12.06
6.51
85.95
0.0619
14.63
8.40
78.61
0.0795
AnyChange ( Zheng et al., 2024 )
6.59 (69%)
3988 (124%)
16.51
9.32
78.27
0.1056
19.54
11.84
76.07
0.1252
AnyChange* ( Zheng et al., 2024 )
10.15 (107%)
2683 (83%)
16.64
9.48
88.06
0.1192
21.30
13.81
77.97
0.1492
Inst-CEG ( Li et al., 2024 )
14.95 (158%)
5672 (176%)
6.90
3.68
94.40
0.0551
17.82
10.46
92.80
0.1604
Inst-CEG* ( Li et al., 2024 )
7.08 (75%)
2928 (91%)
23.57
14.35
94.49
0.2139
29.35
18.40
93.62
0.2670
Table 2. Performance, computational resource usage, and inference time cost comparison on semantic OVCD datasets. GPU memory usage and inference time are evaluated on a pair of bi-temporal remote sensing images ( [2,3,512,512] ).
Figure 8. Visualization of feature outputs across our modules. Panel (e) presents the output features after all components, illustrating the progressive refinement of difference features.
Components in CACH
WHU-CD
DSIFN
The Effectiveness of Difference Modules in CACH
FMM
BDFM
EDQA
ResUp
F1 c
IoU c
Kappa
F1 c
IoU c
Kappa
✓
✗
✗
✗
69.68
53.47
0.6870
49.65
33.02
0.3581
✓
✓
✗
✗
78.10
64.06
0.7732
53.22
36.26
0.4758
✓
✓
✓
✗
84.18
72.68
0.8354
55.57
38.47
0.4966
✓
✓
✓
✓
86.18
75.72
0.8562
58.56
41.40
0.5075
Table 3. Investigation on the impact of the proposed CACH components on the WHU-CD and DSIFN datasets.
Pre-train
SECOND (Semantic Change Detection Categories)
Building
Tree
Water
Vegetation
Bareland
Playground
mF1c
SECOND ( Yang et al., 2020 )
75.50
21.58
28.32
25.36
49.88
27.15
37.96
JL1-CD ( Liu et al., 2025 )
70.46
16.96
24.90
23.54
48.02
28.78
35.44
CNAM-CD ( Zhou et al., 2023 )
66.46
22.94
28.09
26.85
46.33
24.49
35.86
CA-CDD (ours)
76.36
27.73
37.23
31.49
54.29
30.23
42.89
Table 4. Ablation experimental results ( mF1c ) of the different CACH pre-train datasets on the SECOND dataset.
OVSS Model
SC-SCD
SECOND
mF1 c
mIoU c
mOA
mKappa
mF1 c
mIoU c
mOA
mKappa
SegE-OV ( Li et al., 2025d )
20.74
12.28
95.03
0.1866
34.24
22.25
94.49
0.3175
RSKT-Seg ( Li et al., 2025a )
24.90
14.22
91.34
0.2192
34.98
23.27
94.44
0.3219
SAM3 ( Carion et al., 2025 )
26.07
15.49
94.92
0.2379
35.73
23.81
94.37
0.3303
SegE-OV3 ( Li et al., 2025e )
35.68
23.22
95.82
0.3385
42.89
29.08
95.17
0.4045
Method
Replace Comparator with our Proposed CACH
Table 5. Investigation on the impact of different implementation of OVSS model and the effectiveness of our CACH.
Appendix figures & tables19 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
Category
Class Name
WHU-CD ( Ji et al., 2019 ) (Single-Category)
Building
{bareland,barren},grass,car,
{tree,forest},{water,river},
cropland, {building,roof,house}
LEVIR-CD ( Chen and Shi, 2020 ) (Single-Category)
Building
{bareland,barren},grass,car,
{tree,forest},{water,river},
cropland, {building,roof,house}
Appendix
Table 6. The prompt class names for the evaluation datasets. {} indicates multiple prompt vocabularies for a single class. Foreground classes are highlighted in BOLD .
CACH Backbone
WHU-CD
DSIFN
F1 c
IoU c
Kappa
F1 c
IoU c
Kappa
ResNet-18 ( He et al., 2015 )
81.28
68.47
0.8062
46.38
30.19
0.4519
ResNet-50 ( He et al., 2015 )
84.16
72.66
0.8355
55.84
38.74
0.5238
DINOv2-Small ( Oquab et al., 2023 )
84.44
73.07
0.8384
54.99
37.93
0.5148
DINOv2-Base ( Oquab et al., 2023 )
86.18
75.72
0.8562
58.56
41.40
0.5075
DINOv2-Large ( Oquab et al., 2023 )
86.58
76.33
0.8603
58.87
41.71
0.5693
Appendix
Table 7. Investigation on the impact of the CACH backbone on the WHU-CD and DSIFN datasets.
OVSS Model
WHU-CD
LEVIR-CD
F1 c
IoU c
Kappa
F1 c
IoU c
Kappa
SegEarth-OV ( Li et al., 2025d )
74.53
59.40
0.7367
65.97
49.22
0.6438
RSKT-Seg ( Li et al., 2025a )
79.13
65.47
0.7840
72.40
56.75
0.7103
SAM3 ( Carion et al., 2025 )
83.17
71.19
0.8255
77.82
63.69
0.7658
SegEarth-OV3 ( Li et al., 2025e )
86.18
75.72
0.8562
78.72
64.91
0.7742
Appendix
Table 8. Investigation on the impact of different implementation of OVSS model on WHU-CD and LEVIR-CD datasets.
OVSS Model
DSIFN
CLCD
F1 c
IoU c
Kappa
F1 c
IoU c
Kappa
SegEarth-OV ( Li et al., 2025d )
42.47
26.96
0.4051
33.81
20.35
0.3209
RSKT-Seg ( Li et al., 2025a )
50.97
34.20
0.4900
43.31
27.64
0.4210
SAM3 ( Carion et al., 2025 )
52.00
35.13
0.5004
43.42
27.73
0.4228
SegEarth-OV3 ( Li et al., 2025e )
58.56
41.40
0.5075
47.89
31.48
0.4239
Appendix
Table 9. Investigation on the impact of different implementation of OVSS model on DSIFN and CLCD datasets.
Feature Channel
SC-SCD
SECOND
( C2,C5,C8,C11 )
mF1 c
mIoU c
mOA
mKappa
mF1 c
mIoU c
mOA
mKappa
(16, 32, 48, 64)
27.18
15.72
80.85
0.2224
32.29
19.25
90.47
0.2764
(32, 48, 54, 80)
27.64
16.04
80.83
0.2273
42.49
26.98
87.59
0.3670
(48, 64, 80, 96)
35.68
23.22
95.82
0.3385
42.89
29.08
95.17
0.4045
(32, 64, 128, 256)
30.89
18.27
97.44
0.2970
47.30
30.98
87.65
0.4092
Appendix
Table 10. Investigation on the impact of different input channel at BDFM and EDQA on SC-SCD and SECOND datasets.
Feature
SC-SCD
SECOND
Difference
mF1 c
mIoU c
mOA
mKappa
mF1 c
mIoU c
mOA
mKappa
feature abs
28.93
16.91
99.52
0.2875
33.21
19.91
99.52
0.3301
TFIM ( Li et al., 2022c )
28.10
16.35
99.53
0.2793
33.17
19.88
99.52
0.3296
CDEM ( Zhan et al., 2025b )
29.68
17.42
99.52
0.2949
35.44
21.54
54.41
0.1545
MDFM ( Ying et al., 2024b )
33.58
20.18
99.52
0.3338
44.10
28.29
87.70
0.3821
BDFM (ours)
35.68
23.22
95.82
0.3385
42.89
29.08
95.17
0.4045
Appendix
Table 11. Investigation on the impact of different implementations of the feature difference module.
Method
SC-SCD ( mF1c ) ↑
GPU Memory Usage (GB) ↓
Inference Time (ms/sample) ↓
Learnable Parameters (M)
DynamicEarth † ( Li et al., 2025c )
29.11
7.33
5035
/
DynamicEarth ‡ ( Li et al., 2025c )
9.19
15.33
6784
/
Seg2Change
35.68
6.08
1521
3.9
Appendix
Table 12. Computational resource usage, and inference time cost comparison on semantic OVCD datasets. GPU memory usage and inference time are evaluated on a pair of bi-temporal remote sensing images ( [2,3,512,512] ).
Method
WHU-CD
LEVIR-CD
F1 c
IoU c
Pre c
Rec c
OA
Kappa
F1 c
IoU c
Pre c
Rec c
OA
Kappa
PCA_KMeans ( Celik, 2009b )
14.33
7.72
8.24
55.05
75.71
0.0846
9.96
5.24
5.70
39.50
63.60
0.0116
CVA ( Bruzzone and Prieto, 2002 )
7.17
3.72
3.81
62.03
40.74
0.0023
9.27
4.86
5.01
61.27
38.88
0.0017
DCVA ( Bergamasco et al., 2022 )
20.55
11.45
12.40
59.96
82.88
0.1537
13.85
7.44
7.63
75.50
52.17
0.0507
UCD-SCM ( Tan et al., 2024 )
32.13
19.14
20.31
76.81
88.02
0.2792
32.36
19.30
23.87
50.21
89.30
0.2734
AnyChange ( Zheng et al., 2024 )
28.13
16.37
16.48
96.16
81.86
0.2330
32.68
19.53
20.46
81.06
82.98
0.2672
Appendix
Table 13. Performance comparison on building change detection datasets. † and ‡ denote the M – C – I and I – M – C configurations of DynamicEarth. * denotes the variants implemented with SegEarth-OV3. The best and the second-best results are, respectively, marked in BOLD and in underline . Except for Kappa, all results are expressed in percentage (%).
Method
DSIFN
CLCD
F1 c
IoU c
Pre c
Rec c
OA
Kappa
F1 c
IoU c
Pre c
Rec c
OA
Kappa
PCA_KMeans ( Celik, 2009b )
35.48
21.57
29.14
45.35
71.98
0.1865
18.42
10.14
11.90
40.76
73.13
0.0780
CVA ( Bruzzone and Prieto, 2002 )
27.88
16.20
17.65
66.29
41.72
0.0142
13.39
7.17
7.53
60.42
41.82
0.0017
DCVA ( Bergamasco et al., 2022 )
38.52
23.85
25.76
76.31
58.60
0.1758
20.81
11.62
12.09
74.77
57.67
0.0918
UCD-SCM ( Tan et al., 2024 )
40.13
25.10
32.82
51.61
73.83
0.2443
23.31
13.19
18.18
32.49
84.09
0.1522
AnyChange ( Zheng et al., 2024 )
39.19
24.37
31.36
52.25
72.45
0.2280
31.96
19.02
21.33
63.63
79.84
0.2342
Appendix
Table 14. Performance comparison on land-cover change detection datasets. † and ‡ denote the M – C – I and I – M – C configurations of DynamicEarth. * denotes the variants implemented with SegEarth-OV3. The best and the second-best results are, respectively, marked in BOLD and in underline . Except for Kappa, all results are expressed in percentage (%).
Method
Bareland
Water
Building
Structure
Farmland
Vegetation
Road
Average
F1 c
IoU c
F1 c
IoU c
F1 c
IoU c
F1 c
IoU c
F1 c
IoU c
F1 c
IoU c
F1 c
IoU c
mF1 c
mIoU c
mOA
mKappa
UCD-SCM ( Tan et al., 2024 )
16.13
8.77
3.32
1.69
15.00
8.11
18.33
10.09
9.18
4.81
16.52
9.01
5.95
3.06
12.06
6.51
85.95
0.0619
AnyChange ( Zheng et al., 2024 )
28.01
16.29
4.22
2.16
19.88
11.03
18.30
10.07
11.19
5.93
30.29
17.85
3.71
1.89
16.51
9.32
78.27
0.1056
AnyChange* ( Zheng et al., 2024 )
24.38
13.88
3.42
1.74
35.91
21.88
17.94
9.85
9.27
4.86
21.92
12.31
3.63
1.85
16.64
9.48
88.06
0.1192
Inst-CEG ( Li et al., 2024 )
0.00
0.00
14.68
7.92
10.34
5.45
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
12.71
6.79
10.58
5.58
6.90
3.68
94.40
0.0551
Inst-CEG* ( Li et al., 2024 )
18.41
10.14
38.14
23.57
53.88
36.87
2.48
1.25
16.53
9.01
21.88
12.28
13.70
7.36
23.57
14.35
94.49
0.2139
Appendix
Table 15. Performance comparison on the SC-SCD dataset. The best and the second-best results are, respectively, marked in BOLD and in underline . Except for Kappa, all results are expressed in percentage (%).
Method
Building
Tree
Water
Vegetation
N.v.g Surface
Playground
Average
F1 c
IoU c
F1 c
IoU c
F1 c
IoU c
F1 c
IoU c
F1 c
IoU c
F1 c
IoU c
mF1 c
mIoU c
mOA
mKappa
UCD-SCM ( Tan et al., 2024 )
36.15
22.06
6.50
3.36
2.20
1.11
18.77
10.35
22.83
12.88
1.31
0.66
14.63
8.40
78.61
0.0795
AnyChange ( Zheng et al., 2024 )
42.79
27.22
7.49
3.89
2.19
1.11
24.82
14.17
38.90
24.15
1.03
0.52
19.54
11.84
76.07
0.1252
AnyChange* ( Zheng et al., 2024 )
58.58
41.42
3.93
2.01
0.97
0.49
21.46
12.02
41.69
26.33
1.17
0.59
21.30
13.81
77.97
0.1492
Inst-CEG ( Li et al., 2024 )
38.27
23.66
17.59
9.64
18.24
10.03
1.14
0.57
0.00
0.00
31.70
18.84
17.82
10.46
92.79
0.1604
Inst-CEG* ( Li et al., 2024 )
63.61
46.63
28.01
16.28
22.67
12.78
25.61
14.69
14.12
7.60
22.08
12.41
29.35
18.40
93.62
0.2670
Appendix
Table 16. Performance comparison on the SECOND dataset. The best and the second-best results are, respectively, marked in BOLD and in underline . Except for Kappa, all results are expressed in percentage (%).
Figure 9. Overall of Seg2Change. The bi-temporal remote sensing images are first fed into the category-agnostic change head (CACH) to generate a category-agnostic change map. In parallel, the same images, along with textual descriptions, are fed into an OVSS model to generate semantic segmentation maps. The final change map is derived by combining them.
Dataset
Study Site
Number of Image Pairs
Image Size**
Resolution
Evaluation Task
WHU-CD ( Ji et al., 2019 )
Christchurch, New Zealand
660 (Test)
512×512
0.3 m
Building CD
LEVIR-CD ( Chen and Shi, 2020 )
Texas, U.S.
512 (Test)
512×512
0.5 m
Building CD
DSIFN ( Zhang et al., 2020 )
Xi’an, China
48 (Test)
512×512
0.03–1 m
Land-cover CD
CLCD ( Liu et al., 2022 )
Guangdong, China
120 (Test)
512×512
0.5–2 m
Land-cover CD
SECOND ( Yang et al., 2020 )
Hangzhou, Chengdu, Shanghai, China
1694 (Test)
512×512
0.5–3 m
Semantic CD
SC-SCD ( Tan et al., 2025a )
Longwen, Zhangzhou, China
322 (Test)
512×512
0.5 m
Semantic CD
Appendix
Table 17. Information on the evaluation benchmark datasets and the CA-CDD coarse label source datasets. * denotes that the initially coarse, category-restricted change annotations are refined to produce category-agnostic change maps. ** indicates that all images have been preprocessed and cropped to a resolution of 512 × 512.
Figure 10. Example images from binary change detection datasets (WHU-CD, LEVIR-CD, DSIFN, and CLCD) and semantic change detection datasets (SC-SCD and SECOND). The binary change detection datasets contain only binary change maps for specific categories. In contrast, the semantic change detection datasets include both binary change maps indicating changed regions between bi-temporal images and multi-class change maps that capture category transitions across time.
Figure 11. Visual comparison between CA-CDD category-agnostic change labels and the original coarse labels. We have improved the limited category range of the original labels. At the same time, we have refined the coarse-grained range annotations in the labels to fine-grained annotations. The gray markings in the figure represent the refinements we made to the original labels.
Figure 12. Qualitative comparison of several representative UCD and OVCD methods on three binary change detection datasets, i.e. , WHU-CD, LEVIR-CD, and DSIFN. White represents a true positive, black is a true negative, green indicates a false positive, and red is a false negative. Fewer green and red pixels represent better performance.
Figure 13. Qualitative comparison of several representative UCD and OVCD methods on CLCD.
Figure 14. Qualitative comparison of the state-of-the-art OVCD method DynamicEarth on a semantic change detection dataset, i.e. , SC-SCD. Black represents non-change. Color rendering: "Bareland" , "Building" , "Farmland" , "Road" , "Structure" , "Vegetation" , "Water" .
Figure 15. Qualitative comparison of the state-of-the-art OVCD method DynamicEarth on a semantic change detection dataset, i.e. , SECOND. Black represents non-change. Color rendering: "Building" , "Vegetation" , "Bareland" , "Playground" , "Tree" , "Water" .
Unlike traditional remote sensing change detection that relies on predefined categories, Open-Vocabulary Change Detection (OVCD) identifies land cover changes flexibly using arbitrary text prompts. However, most existing OVCD methods rely on instance-level matching for stable correspondence but may overlook fine-grained variations (e.g., partial building extensions). Dense pixel-level comparison is more flexible, yet direct semantic comparison often produces unreliable candidate changes due to semantic ambiguity and spatial inconsistency. To this end, we propose ReA-OVCD, an efficient training-free framework that revisits pixel-level OVCD from a reliability assessment perspective. It first derives candidate change regions from pixel-wise semantic discrepancies to retain flexible localization. Instead of directly trusting these candidates, ReA-OVCD applies a two-stage semantic-spatial reliability assessment. The semantic stage evaluates whether a label discrepancy is supported by meaningful distributional and response-level changes, while the spatial stage validates whether a candidate region contains stable interior evidence rather than only boundary-induced responses. Extensive experiments across LEVIR-CD, WHU-CD, DSIFN, and SECOND show that the proposed framework improves the reliability of pixel-level OVCD and consistently outperforms state-of-the-art approaches, achieving F1C improvements of 3.54% to 8.45% while maintaining superior computational efficiency. The code is available at https://github.com/Funny0101/ReA-OVCD.
Hongming Zhu, Huaji Chen, Bowen Du +2
School of Computer Science and Technology, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China · College of Surveying and Geo-Informatics, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
Remote sensing change detection (CD) aims to identify where land-cover semantics change across time, but most existing methods still assume a fixed label space and therefore cannot answer arbitrary user-defined queries. Open-vocabulary change detection (OVCD) instead asks for the change mask of a queried concept. In the fully training-free setting, however, dense concept responses are difficult to compare directly across dates: appearance variation, weak cross-concept competition, and the spatial continuity of many land-cover categories often produce noisy, fragmented, and semantically unreliable change evidence. We propose Consistency-Regularized Open-Vocabulary Change Detection (CoRegOVCD), a training-free dense inference framework that reformulates concept-specific change as calibrated posterior discrepancy. Competitive Posterior Calibration (CPC) and the Semantic Posterior Delta (SPD) convert raw concept responses into competition-aware queried-concept posteriors and quantify their cross-temporal discrepancy, making semantic change evidence more comparable without explicit instance matching. Geometry-Token Consistency Gate (GeoGate) and Regional Consensus Discrepancy (RCD) further suppress unsupported responses and improve spatial coherence through geometry-aware structural verification and regional consensus. Across four benchmarks spanning building-oriented and multi-class settings, CoRegOVCD consistently improves over the strongest previous training-free baseline by 2.24 to 4.98 F1C points and reaches a six-class average of 47.50% F1C on SECOND.
Weidong Tang, Hanbin Sun, Zihan Li +2
China Agricultural University, College of Information and Electrical Engineering, Beijing, China · China Agricultural University, College of Science, Beijing, China
Open-vocabulary change detection (OVCD) seeks to recognize arbitrary changes of interest by enabling generalization beyond a fixed set of predefined classes. We reformulate OVCD as a two-stage pipeline: first generate class-agnostic change proposals using visual foundation models (VFMs) such as SAM and DINOv2, and then perform category identification with vision-language models (VLMs) such as CLIP. We reveal that category identification errors are the primary bottleneck of OVCD, mainly due to the limited ability of VLMs based on image-text matching to represent fine-grained land-cover categories. To address this, we propose OpenDPR, a training-free vision-centric diffusion-guided prototype retrieval framework. OpenDPR leverages diffusion models to construct diverse prototypes for target categories offline, and to perform similarity retrieval with change proposals in the visual space during inference. The secondary bottleneck lies in change localization, due to the inherent lack of change priors in VFMs. To bridge this gap, we design a spatial-to-change weakly supervised change detection module named S2C to adapt their strong spatial modeling capabilities for change localization. Integrating the pretrained S2C into OpenDPR leads to an optional weakly supervised variant named OpenDPR-W, which further improves OVCD with minimal supervision. Experimental results on four benchmark datasets demonstrate that the proposed methods achieve state-of-the-art performance under both supervision modes. Code is available at https://github.com/guoqi2002/OpenDPR.
Qi Guo, Jue Wang, Yinhe Liu +1
Wuhan University · Beijing Institute of Technology