Organizations: State Key Laboratory of Physical Oceanography, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266100, China · Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS 39762 USA
Remote sensing image semantic segmentation (RSISS) has attracted significant attention due to the growing demand for fine-grained land cover information. The Segment Anything Model (SAM), proposed as a foundation vision model, offers strong segmentation performance and generalization capabilities for RSISS tasks. However, existing SAM-based approaches face two limitations: (1) Insufficient adaptation of SAM's features to the diverse characteristics of land cover types. (2) Semantic ambiguity at object boundaries, which hinders accurate delineation. To address these limitations, we propose Frequency and Edge-guided SAM (FE-SAM), a scalable and efficient framework for RSISS. Specifically, we introduce a Frequency-Modulated Adapter (FMA) that adaptively decomposes and modulates frequency-domain features based on the input data. It selectively enhances informative high- and low-frequency components corresponding to different land cover types. Furthermore, to improve SAM's ability to capture fine-grained details, we design EGRefiner, which integrates multi-scale edge-enhanced information extracted from the input image. Extensive experiments on three benchmark datasets demonstrate that FE-SAM outperforms state-of-the-art methods. The source codes are available at: https://github.com/oucailab/FE-SAM.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Framework of our Frequency and Edge-guided Segment Anything Model ( FE-SAM ) for remote sensing image semantic segmentation. It reuses the pre-trained weights of SAM with two novel modules: Frequency-Modulated Adapter (FMA) and Edge-Guided Refiner (EGRefiner).
Fig. 2: Framework of our Frequency and Edge-guided Segment Anything Model ( FE-SAM ) for remote sensing image semantic segmentation. It reuses the pre-trained weights of SAM with two novel modules: Frequency-Modulated Adapter (FMA) and Edge-Guided Refiner (EGRefiner).
Fig. 3: Cross-dataset spectral analysis. Top rows: representative patches and their 2D log-magnitude spectra from SA-1B and three remote sensing datasets. Bottom: averaged radial PSD curves.
Fig. 4: Illustration of the Edge-Guided Refiner (EGRefiner).
Class
Pixels( ×106 )
Proportion(%)
Vaihingen
Imp. surf.
121.5
29.2
Building
113.6
27.3
Low veg.
79.1
19.0
Tree
80.7
19.4
Car
5.0
1.2
Clutter
16.2
3.9
TABLE I: Pixel-level class distribution on three datasets
Fig. 5: Statistical significance analysis of mIoU on the ISPRS Vaihingen and Potsdam datasets.
Method
Type
Vaihingen
Potsdam
LoveDA
FCN8s
CNN- based
78.25
81.03
48.02
U-Net
80.96
83.96
50.46
DeepLabv3+
81.78
84.02
51.45
MA-Net
82.76
84.91
51.64
A2-FPN
82.40
85.16
52.20
UNetFormer
Transformer- based
82.86
85.24
52.44
TABLE II: Semantic segmentation results (measured by mIoU) of various methods on three benchmark datasets. The bold and underline denote the best and second results.
Method
Type
Backbone
Per-class F1-score
mIoU(%)
m-F1(%)
OA(%)
Imp.surf.
Building
Low veg.
Tree
Car
FCN8s
CNN- based
VGG-16
95.22
91.89
81.76
88.52
79.68
78.25
87.41
88.96
U-Net
ResNet-18
96.03
94.51
82.58
88.73
83.76
80.96
89.12
89.94
DeepLabv3+
ResNet-18
96.38
95.13
82.88
88.86
84.84
81.78
89.62
90.50
MA-Net
ResNet-18
96.39
95.17
83.86
89.51
86.33
82.76
90.25
90.69
A2-FPN
ResNet-18
96.31
95.04
83.01
89.08
86.67
82.40
90.02
90.52
TABLE III: Quantitative comparisons with the state-of-the-art methods on the ISPRS Vaihingen dataset. The bold and underline denote the best and second results.
Fig. 6: Additional qualitative results on the ISPRS Vaihingen dataset. From top to bottom, each row showcases a different challenging scene. Our model, FE-SAM (last column), consistently produces segmentation masks that are more detailed and accurate than those from competing methods.
Method
Type
Backbone
Per-class F1-score
mIoU(%)
m-F1(%)
OA(%)
Imp. surf.
Building
Low veg.
Tree
Car
FCN8s
CNN- based
VGG-16
90.62
92.55
85.02
85.95
92.48
81.03
89.32
88.00
U-Net
ResNet-18
92.31
94.56
85.82
87.37
95.01
83.96
91.01
89.60
DeepLabv3+
ResNet-18
92.78
95.07
86.10
87.41
94.86
84.02
91.24
89.70
MA-Net
ResNet-18
92.86
95.30
86.47
87.77
95.45
84.91
91.57
90.41
A2-FPN
ResNet-18
93.08
95.79
86.53
88.00
94.84
85.16
91.65
90.44
TABLE IV: Quantitative comparisons with the state-of-the-art methods on the ISPRS Potsdam dataset. The bold and underline denote the best and second results.
Fig. 7: Additional qualitative results on the ISPRS Potsdam dataset. Our model, FE-SAM (last column), consistently generates more accurate and complete segmentation masks compared to other state-of-the-art methods, especially in areas with complex object layouts.
Method
Type
Backbone
Per-class IoU
mIoU(%)
Background
Building
Road
Water
Barren
Forest
Agriculture
FCN8s
CNN- based
VGG-16
54.46
63.95
56.88
62.66
11.83
32.30
47.03
48.02
U-Net
ResNet-18
54.16
58.56
57.19
57.93
27.31
41.54
56.53
50.46
DeepLabv3+
ResNet-18
54.39
60.15
58.09
63.30
26.52
41.94
55.38
51.45
MA-Net
ResNet-18
54.76
60.94
57.10
62.18
34.82
37.26
54.42
51.64
A2-FPN
ResNet-18
55.64
62.00
58.42
65.56
28.08
42.19
53.54
52.20
TABLE V: Quantitative comparisons with the state-of-the-art methods on the LoveDA dataset. The bold and underline denote the best and second results.
Fig. 8: Additional qualitative results on the LoveDA dataset. The selected scenes showcase diverse urban and rural landscapes. Our model, FE-SAM (last column), consistently provides more complete and semantically accurate segmentation masks than competing methods.
Method
Backbone
mIoU (%)
B-IoU
B-IoU
( d=8 )
( d=16 )
U-Net[42]
ResNet-18
80.96
73.12
75.48
DeepLabv3+[43]
ResNet-18
81.78
74.56
76.82
UNetFormer[46]
ResNet-18
82.86
76.28
78.53
SAM[8]
ViT-B
83.04
75.82
77.96
SAM-Adapter[50]
SAM-B
83.35
77.14
79.21
TABLE VI: Quantitative comparison of boundary segmentation quality on the ISPRS Vaihingen dataset. B-IoU ( d=8 ) and B-IoU ( d=16 ) measure the accuracy within 8 and 16 pixels from the boundary
Method
Total Params(M)
FLOPs(M)
FPS
SAM [8]
86.94
103.17
15.6
SAM-Adapter [50]
90.78
109.61
14.1
RSPrompter [18]
93.45
113.66
11.8
Semantic-SAM [52]
101.12
115.83
10.2
FE-SAM (Ours)
94.52
114.11
12.4
TABLE VII: Model complexity comparison of SAM-based methods.
Fig. 9: Comparison of mIoU, total parameters, and inference speed among SAM-based methods.
FMA
EGRefiner
Vaihingen
Potsdam
LoveDA
83.04
85.94
52.54
✓
84.06
86.50
54.13
✓
83.57
86.25
53.64
✓
✓
85.24
86.73
55.66
TABLE VIII: Ablation studies on different modules of FE-SAM.
Fig. 10: Visual comparisons of feature representations before and after the FMA module. From left to right: original remote sensing images, feature heatmaps before FMA, and feature heatmaps after FMA.
Method
Trainable Params (M)
Vaihingen
Potsdam
LoveDA
Full tuning
83.02
83.04
85.94
52.54
Adapter
7.83
83.12
86.09
53.14
LoRA
7.09
83.20
86.15
53.07
FMA (Ours)
7.56
84.06
86.50
54.13
TABLE IX: Comparison of different parameter-efficient fine-tuning strategies. Performance is measured in mIoU(%).
FMA Configuration
Vaihingen
Potsdam
LoveDA
Baseline (w/o FMA)
83.57
86.25
53.64
Fixed LPF/HPF (Generic)
84.12
86.41
54.02
Fixed LPF/HPF (Learned)
84.45
86.50
54.31
FMA (Ours)
85.24
86.73
55.66
TABLE X: Ablation on the necessity of FMA’s adaptive partitioning, evaluated across all three benchmark datasets. Performance is measured in mIoU(%).
Fig. 11: Visual validation of FMA’s adaptive frequency partitioning on the ISPRS Vaihingen dataset.
Fig. 12: Visual validation of FMA’s adaptive frequency partitioning on the ISPRS Potsdam dataset.
Configuration
Vaihingen
Potsdam
LoveDA
Single-Scale DConv 3x3
84.72
86.55
54.71
Single-Scale DConv 5x5
84.85
86.60
55.06
Single-Scale DConv 7x7
84.81
86.58
54.89
Multi-Scale DConv (Ours)
85.24
86.73
55.66
TABLE XI: Ablation study on the multi-scale architecture of EGRefiner on three benchmark datasets (mIoU%).
Fig. 13: Qualitative comparison visualizing the efficacy of the Edge-Guided Refiner (EGRefiner) for boundary refinement on challenging scenes from the ISPRS Vaihingen dataset.
EGRefiner Configuration
Vaihingen
Potsdam
LoveDA
w/o Element-wise Subtraction
84.65
86.48
55.03
w/o Channel-wise Concat
84.81
86.55
55.21
w/o Fs Feature Fusion
79.32
81.05
49.58
EGRefiner (Full, Ours)
85.24
86.73
55.66
TABLE XII: Ablation study on the architectural components of the EGRefiner, evaluated across all three benchmark datasets.
Referring Remote Sensing Image Segmentation (RRSIS) has achieved significant progress through the integration of VLMs and the Segment Anything Model (SAM). However, this progress largely relies on strong pre-trained capabilities, while leaving two fundamental limitations insufficiently addressed: (1) Architectural Weak-Coupling, where the unidirectional flow forces reliance on coarse VLM prompts and wastes SAM's pixel-level structural guidance, causing localization drift; and (2) Object-Centric Semantic Bias, where models overemphasize dominant object semantics while remaining insensitive to spatial reasoning crucial for RRSIS. Motivated by these observations, we propose CROSS, a tightly integrated paradigm for RRSIS. First, we introduce Linguistic-Guided Cascaded Distillation (LGCD) to bridge the architectural gap, which distills SAM's geometric affinities as soft regularizers into VLM intermediate layers, injecting dense structural priors to refine localization. Second, Perspective-Spatial Contrastive Learning (PSCL) imposes cross-anchored constraints by mining mask-filtered deceptive distractors and spatial-linguistic counterfactuals as hard negatives, explicitly shattering semantic shortcuts to enforce genuine logical consistency. Extensive experiments on RRSIS benchmarks demonstrate that CROSS achieves state-of-the-art performance and maintains precise localization even under severe spatial description perturbations, standing as a robust new paradigm for RRSIS.
Tingzhang Luo, Ruizhong Liu, Yichao Liu +3
City University of Hong Kong · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · Nankai University +1
SAM2 produces high-quality zero-shot segmentation on natural images, but applying it to large remote sensing scenes exposes two problems: (1) its mask generator faces an inherent quality-coverage trade-off: strict thresholds yield precise masks but leave most of the image unsegmented, while relaxed thresholds increase coverage at the cost of mask quality; and (2) large images must be tiled, fragmenting objects across tile boundaries. We propose Remote SAMsing, an open-source pipeline that solves both problems without modifying SAM2 or requiring training data. For coverage, a multi-pass algorithm runs SAM2 repeatedly on each tile, painting accepted masks black between passes to simplify the scene for the next iteration, and relaxing quality thresholds only when coverage gains stagnate, ensuring that the most precise masks are always captured first. For spatial consistency, contextual padding and a parameter-free best-match merge reconstruct objects fragmented across tile boundaries. Evaluated on seven scenes (5cm to 4.78m GSD), the pipeline raises coverage from 30--68% (single-pass SAM2) to 91--98%. Ablation experiments quantify the contribution of each component to coverage and detection quality. Per-class evaluation shows that SAM2 transfers well to discrete RS objects (buildings 95%, cars 82--93% [email protected]) with segment boundaries 3--8× more precise than SLIC and Felzenszwalb baselines. Tile size functions as an implicit scale parameter: reducing it from 1,000 to 250 raises [email protected] from 56% to 85%, outperforming SAM2's built-in multi-scale mechanism. The pipeline generalizes to MNF false-color imagery without retraining (99.5% ASA) and scales to production-sized images: a 1.94 billion pixel Potsdam mosaic achieved 97% coverage without quality degradation.
Osmar Luiz Ferreira de Carvalho, Osmar Abílio de Carvalho Júnior, Anesmar Olino de Albuquerque +1
Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Brasília, Brasília, Brazil · Department of Geography, University of Brasília, Brasília, Brazil
The deployment of large-scale foundation models like Segment Anything Model (SAM) on resource-constrained Earth observation platforms is hindered by prohibitive computational costs and the domain shift between natural and remote sensing imagery. To address these challenges, we propose Geospatial Segment Anything Model-Lite (GeoSAM-Lite), a lightweight, prompt-free segmentation framework designed for efficient onboard remote sensing segmentation. GeoSAM-Lite incorporates two core innovations: (1) Geospatial-Domain Initialization (Geo-Init), a domain-aware pre-training strategy that distills geospatial priors from a specialized teacher to bridge the domain gap; and (2) Feature Fusion Layers (FFL), which recalibrate spatial features and restore high-frequency boundary cues to overcome the capacity bottlenecks of lightweight backbones. Experiments across representative datasets, with a primary focus on cloud scenarios to evaluate performance under extreme scale variations and complex boundaries, demonstrate that GeoSAM-Lite achieves competitive accuracy while reducing parameters by 92.8% compared to the heavyweight RSAM-Seg. By establishing a superior Pareto frontier between efficiency and fidelity, GeoSAM-Lite offers a practical solution for real-time segmentation on edge devices.
Yongcong Wang, Jie Zhang, Rui Jiang +3
College of Telecommunications and Information Engineering, Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Nanjing 210003, China