CRISP: Calibration-Aware Visual State Space Duality for Remote Sensing Semantic Segmentation
Organizations: Tianmushan Laboratory, Beihang University, Hangzhou 311115, China · Hangzhou International Innovation Institute, Beihang University, Hangzhou 311115, China · School of Astronautics, Beihang University, Beijing 102206, China · Key Laboratory of Spacecraft Design Optimization and Dynamic Simulation Technology, Ministry of Education, Beijing 102206, China
Abstract
State space models, especially Visual State Space Duality (VSSD), have emerged as efficient linear-time alternatives to Transformers for dense visual tasks. However, we observe that VSSD compresses spatial context into a global aggregation that suppresses high-frequency responses, causing excessive boundary smoothing in remote sensing semantic segmentation. To address this, we propose CRISP, a calibration framework with two components. Its core, the Duality Calibration Operator (DCO), restores local contrast and boundary responses through residual injection and frequency calibration within the VSSD backbone, without altering its linear complexity. To retain the recovered detail, an Orthogonal Multi-Prototype (OMP) head assigns multiple orthogonally constrained prototypes per class to model large intra-class variance. Extensive experiments on Potsdam, Vaihingen, and LoveDA show that, with approximately 30M parameters, CRISP achieves consistent gains in mean F1 (mF) and mIoU while remaining competitive with state-of-the-art methods. Code is available at https://github.com/crazylifeha/CRISP.
Figures & tables
| Method | Params (M) | Bg | Bu | Rd | Wa | Ba | Fo | Ag | mIoU |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABCNet [ 22 ] | 13.6 | 49.78 | 46.56 | 48.08 | 63.83 | 20.03 | 38.33 | 47.04 | 44.81 |
| VSSD [ 34 ] | 56.1 | 50.41 | 50.96 | 51.86 | 64.94 | 24.00 | 40.57 | 47.35 | 47.15 |
| DCSwin [ 40 ] | 45.6 | 49.70 | 56.95 | 47.92 | 66.14 | 27.53 | 42.04 | 43.56 | 47.69 |
| PyramidMamba [ 39 ] | 125.1 | 50.73 | 51.06 | 51.47 | 67.81 | 26.78 | 40.08 | 49.17 | 48.16 |
| BANet [ 38 ] | 12.7 | 53.10 | 59.52 | 48.83 | 65.06 | 23.09 | 41.12 | 49.00 | 48.53 |
| SFA-Net [ 18 ] | 10.7 | 52.58 | 58.73 | 53.53 | 66.84 | 27.31 | 39.16 | 48.85 | 49.57 |
| Method | Params (M) | Imp. | Build. | Low-veg. | Tree | Car | mFscore | mIoU |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BANet | 12.7 | 92.31 | 94.42 | 86.27 | 84.93 | 94.95 | 90.58 | 83.04 |
| PyramidMamba | 125.1 | 93.41 | 95.93 | 86.77 | 85.86 | 95.54 | 91.50 | 84.62 |
| DCSwin | 45.6 | 93.57 | 96.13 | 87.51 | 87.03 | 96.12 | 92.07 | 85.56 |
| VSSD | 56.1 | 93.78 | 96.27 | 87.13 | 87.20 | 95.97 | 92.07 | 85.57 |
| SFA-Net | 10.7 | 94.06 | 96.63 | 87.96 | 87.28 | 96.46 | 92.48 | 86.28 |
| ABCNet | 13.6 | 94.14 | 96.88 | 88.07 | 88.04 | 96.13 | 92.65 | 86.55 |
| Method | Params (M) | Imp. | Build. | Low-veg. | Tree | Car | mFscore | mIoU |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SFA-Net | 10.7 | 91.76 | 94.35 | 82.42 | 88.43 | 75.73 | 86.54 | 76.87 |
| UNetFormer | 11.7 | 92.23 | 94.65 | 83.75 | 89.04 | 79.16 | 87.77 | 78.64 |
| DCSwin | 45.6 | 91.85 | 94.30 | 83.96 | 89.18 | 80.68 | 87.99 | 78.92 |
| PyramidMamba | 125.1 | 92.38 | 94.99 | 83.49 | 88.88 | 81.41 | 88.23 | 79.32 |
| BANet | 12.7 | 91.79 | 94.41 | 83.21 | 89.03 | 83.70 | 88.43 | 79.54 |
| VSSD | 56.1 | 92.40 | 94.94 | 82.86 | 88.54 | 83.96 | 88.54 | 79.75 |
| Config. | Res. Inj. | Hi-Pass | DC/HC | mIoU |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 87.32 | |||
| Res. Inj. only | ✓ | 87.65 | ||
| Hi-Pass only | ✓ | 87.68 | ||
| DC/HC only | ✓ | 87.64 | ||
| Hi-Pass + DC/HC | ✓ | ✓ | 87.83 | |
| Full DCO | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 88.10 |
| Dec. | DCO | Orth | Margin | mIoU |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UPer | 87.32 | |||
| UPer | ✓ | 88.10 | ||
| OMP | ✓ | ✓ | 85.63 | |
| OMP | ✓ | 86.85 | ||
| OMP | ✓ | ✓ | 88.06 | |
| OMP | ✓ | ✓ | 88.02 |
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Model | Param. (M) | FLOPs (G) | Mem. (G) | Lat. (ms) | FPS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SFA-Net | 10.70 | 7.22 | 0.13 | 6.36 | 157.2 |
| UNetFormer | 11.72 | 11.76 | 0.10 | 2.88 | 347.7 |
| BANet | 12.71 | 15.09 | 0.48 | 4.35 | 230.1 |
| ABCNet | 13.63 | 15.59 | 0.47 | 2.55 | 392.1 |
| AerialFormer | 43.16 | 49.94 | 0.30 | 6.95 | 144.0 |
| DCSwin | 45.63 | 48.41 | 0.65 | 7.26 | 137.8 |
| Method / Metric | Encoder | DCO | Decoder | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VSSD baseline FLOPs (G) | 25.07 | – | 210.58 | 235.65 |
| CRISP Params (M) | 26.20 | 6.13 | 32.32 | |
| CRISP FLOPs (G) | 45.83 | 3.19 | 15.78 | 64.80 |
| mIoU (%) | mFscore (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | 88.10 | 93.56 |
| 3 | 88.25 | 93.64 |
| 4 | 88.17 | 93.59 |
| 5 | 88.19 | 93.60 |
| Model | Band mIoU | Band Acc | mBF |
|---|---|---|---|
| w/o DCO | 0.6830 | 0.7833 | 0.8698 |
| w/o proto. regs | 0.6848 | 0.7840 | 0.8232 |
| Full CRISP | 0.7179 | 0.8104 | 0.8953 |
| Dataset | VSSD | CRISP | Gain |
|---|---|---|---|
| Potsdam | 0.6669 | 0.7038 | +0.0369 |
| Vaihingen | 0.6730 | 0.6935 | +0.0205 |
| LoveDA | 0.1999 | 0.2239 | +0.0240 |
Semantic Segmentation
Semantic segmentation assigns a class label to every image pixel, enabling detailed scene understanding across domains and sensors.
See all 414 papers