Global-Local Contextual Progressive Expansion Network for Martian Landslide Segmentation in Multimodal Remote Sensing Imagery
Authors: Leo Thomas Ramos, Sidike Paheding, Abel A. Reyes-Angulo, Rajaneesh A., Sajinkumar K. S., Angel D. Sappa, Thomas Oommen
Organizations: Computer Vision Center, Universitat Aut`onoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, 08193, Spain · Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Fairfield University, Fairfield, CT 06824, USA · Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931, USA · Department of Geology, University of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram 695581, Kerala, India · ESPOL Polytechnic University, Guayaquil, 090112, Ecuador · Department of Geology and Geological Engineering, University of Mississippi, MS 38677, USA
Automated landslide segmentation on Mars is one of the important tasks for understanding its surface processes, and all will aid in future space exploration. However, it remains a relatively underexplored open challenge because landslide morphology is highly variable, foreground regions are often sparse or irregular, and orbital observations combine heterogeneous spectral and topographic cues. In this context, this work investigates the capability of deep learning to address Martian landslide segmentation through an extensive assessment of modern neural segmentation models. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to provide such a comprehensive exploration in this domain. We further propose TransCPLES, a U-shaped network that couples Contextual Progressive Layer Expansion feature extraction with Transformer-based contextual reasoning, enabling the model to capture local geomorphic patterns and broader spatial dependencies for more reliable landslide delineation. Experiments on MMLSv2, a seven-band multimodal Martian landslide dataset, show that TransCPLES achieves the best overall performance when evaluated on geographically distinct samples, with consistent delineation across different landslide extents, stable foreground discrimination, and a favorable balance between accuracy and computational cost compared with several state-of-the-art convolutional, attention-based, and Transformer-based segmentation models. With this work, we hope to provide a useful reference and encourage further research and development in deep learning for planetary remote sensing. Code will be available after publication.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1 : Geographic distribution of the standard and isolated sets comprising the MMLSv2 dataset.
Fig. 2 : Example scenes from the MMLSv2 dataset. Channel order: (1) Red, (2) Green, (3) Blue, (4) DEM, (5) Slope, (6) Thermal inertia, (7) Grayscale.
Split
# Images
Avg. FG (%)
Std. FG (%)
Min. FG (%)
Max. FG (%)
Train
465
35.41
25.64
0.02
99.52
Val
66
31.53
24.05
0.08
90.32
Test
133
33.82
25.05
0.10
90.67
Isolated test
276
21.83
17.08
0.01
71.95
TABLE I : Breakdown of the MMLSv2 dataset across its respective splits. The foreground proportion is reported as the percentage of pixels corresponding to landslide areas, including the mean (Avg. FG ), standard deviation (Std. FG ), and range defined by minimum and maximum values (Min. FG , Max. FG ).
Fig. 3 : MarsLS-Net [ 22 ] architecture, including the overall framework with stacked PEN-attention blocks, the internal structure of the PEN-Attention module, the multi-head self-attention mechanism, and the ConvPE layer.
Fig. 4 : Proposed TransCPLES architecture, comprising an encoder–decoder framework with C-PLES blocks, and a Transformer-based bridge for global contextual reasoning.
Filters
Kernel size
Standard test set
Isolated test set
Params (M)
IoU BG (%) ↑
IoU FG (%) ↑
mIoU (%) ↑
Latency (s) ↓
T. time (h) ↓
IoU BG (%) ↑
IoU FG (%) ↑
mIoU (%) ↑
Latency (s) ↓
16
1
83.883 ± 0.594
70.800 ± 0.792
77.341 ± 0.579
0.089 ± 0.027
2.137 ± 0.000
86.003 ± 1.040
62.199 ± 0.852
74.101 ± 0.900
0.072 ± 0.000
0.075
3
85.890 ± 0.198
74.364 ± 0.269
80.127 ± 0.068
0.074 ± 0.001
2.140 ± 0.000
86.161 ± 1.031
62.633 ± 1.857
74.397 ± 1.331
0.073 ± 0.000
0.109
5
85.974 ± 0.343
74.463 ± 0.788
80.218 ± 0.507
0.073 ± 0.000
2.159 ± 0.024
86.839 ± 0.867
63.242 ± 2.110
75.040 ± 1.432
0.073 ± 0.000
0.176
32
1
83.972 ± 0.522
70.452 ± 0.643
77.212 ± 0.578
0.081 ± 0.000
2.212 ± 0.022
84.134 ± 1.037
59.566 ± 0.674
71.850 ± 0.843
0.081 ± 0.000
0.298
3
85.935 ± 0.465
74.523 ± 0.491
80.229 ± 0.460
0.082 ± 0.002
2.192 ± 0.000
85.673 ± 1.652
62.387 ± 2.460
74.030 ± 2.053
0.081 ± 0.000
0.431
TABLE II : Ablation study of the number of convolutional filters and kernel size in MarsLS-Net.
PE terms
Standard test set
Isolated test set
Params (M)
IoU BG (%) ↑
IoU FG (%) ↑
mIoU (%) ↑
Latency (s) ↓
T. time (h) ↓
IoU BG (%) ↑
IoU FG (%) ↑
mIoU (%) ↑
Latency (s) ↓
1
86.193 ± 0.299
74.603 ± 0.408
80.398 ± 0.354
0.115 ± 0.060
2.213 ± 0.018
86.495 ± 1.563
63.146 ± 1.720
74.821 ± 1.641
0.078 ± 0.000
0.869
2
86.317 ± 0.629
74.712 ± 1.215
80.515 ± 0.922
0.088 ± 0.000
2.293 ± 0.024
87.990 ± 0.428
64.877 ± 1.101
76.434 ± 0.695
0.088 ± 0.000
1.562
3
86.368 ± 0.576
74.798 ± 1.690
80.583 ± 1.133
0.158 ± 0.050
2.565 ± 0.011
87.489 ± 1.277
63.949 ± 2.103
75.719 ± 1.664
0.127 ± 0.000
2.549
TABLE III : Effect of the number of progressive expansion terms in MarsLS-Net.
PEN blocks
Standard test set
Isolated test set
Params (M)
IoU BG (%) ↑
IoU FG (%) ↑
mIoU (%) ↑
Latency (s) ↓
T. time (h) ↓
IoU BG (%) ↑
IoU FG (%) ↑
mIoU (%) ↑
Latency (s) ↓
2
86.351 ± 0.283
74.641 ± 1.090
80.496 ± 0.649
0.058 ± 0.021
1.181 ± 0.002
87.737 ± 1.421
64.227 ± 1.381
75.982 ± 1.393
0.045 ± 0.000
0.785
3
86.589 ± 0.208
74.874 ± 0.638
80.732 ± 0.422
0.068 ± 0.000
1.744 ± 0.001
86.961 ± 1.707
63.413 ± 1.783
75.187 ± 1.741
0.067 ± 0.000
1.173
4
86.317 ± 0.629
74.712 ± 1.215
80.515 ± 0.922
0.088 ± 0.000
2.293 ± 0.024
87.990 ± 0.428
64.877 ± 1.101
76.434 ± 0.695
0.088 ± 0.000
1.562
TABLE IV : Effect of the number of stacked PEN-Attention blocks in MarsLS-Net.
MHSA heads
Standard test set
Isolated test set
Params (M)
IoU BG (%) ↑
IoU FG (%) ↑
mIoU (%) ↑
Latency (s) ↓
T. time (h) ↓
IoU BG (%) ↑
IoU FG (%) ↑
mIoU (%) ↑
Latency (s) ↓
1
86.329 ± 0.074
74.618 ± 0.709
80.474 ± 0.389
0.083 ± 0.028
1.565 ± 0.042
87.869 ± 0.760
64.005 ± 0.947
75.937 ± 0.851
0.086 ± 0.000
1.562
2
86.317 ± 0.629
74.712 ± 1.215
80.515 ± 0.922
0.088 ± 0.000
2.293 ± 0.024
87.990 ± 0.428
64.877 ± 1.101
76.434 ± 0.695
0.088 ± 0.000
1.562
4
82.816 ± 0.781
66.609 ± 3.461
74.712 ± 2.121
0.145 ± 0.000
4.721 ± 2.616
86.289 ± 1.136
58.339 ± 2.128
72.314 ± 1.073
0.144 ± 0.000
1.562
TABLE V : Effect of the number of spatial self-attention heads in MarsLS-Net.
Variant
Standard test set
Isolated test set
Params (M)
IoU BG (%) ↑
IoU FG (%) ↑
mIoU (%) ↑
Latency (s) ↓
T. time (h) ↓
IoU BG (%) ↑
IoU FG (%) ↑
mIoU (%) ↑
Latency (s) ↓
w/o convpe
76.384 ± 0.567
64.830 ± 0.795
70.607 ± 0.401
0.070 ± 0.000
2.144 ± 0.001
82.122 ± 0.580
55.986 ± 1.331
69.054 ± 0.743
0.069 ± 0.000
0.297
w/o pe
82.031 ± 0.526
67.885 ± 0.430
74.958 ± 0.451
0.078 ± 0.003
2.227 ± 0.001
85.156 ± 1.520
61.619 ± 2.633
73.387 ± 2.037
0.077 ± 0.000
0.869
w/o mhsa
84.456 ± 0.454
70.954 ± 0.139
77.705 ± 0.284
0.005 ± 0.001
0.312 ± 0.002
89.487 ± 0.103
61.734 ± 0.365
75.611 ± 0.227
0.004 ± 0.000
0.969
full
86.317 ± 0.629
74.712 ± 1.215
80.515 ± 0.922
0.088 ± 0.000
2.293 ± 0.024
87.990 ± 0.428
64.877 ± 1.101
76.434 ± 0.695
0.088 ± 0.000
1.562
TABLE VI : Component-wise ablation study of MarsLS-Net.
Band
Standard test set
Isolated test set
combination
IoU BG (%) ↑
IoU FG (%) ↑
mIoU (%) ↑
Latency (s) ↓
T. time (h) ↓
IoU BG (%) ↑
IoU FG (%) ↑
mIoU (%) ↑
Latency (s) ↓
RGB
74.714 ± 1.667
54.144 ± 3.094
64.429 ± 2.378
0.094 ± 0.005
2.339 ± 0.002
75.245 ± 1.880
32.719 ± 3.099
53.982 ± 1.302
0.090 ± 0.000
RGB-DEM
72.790 ± 0.947
54.464 ± 1.959
63.627 ± 0.548
0.091 ± 0.000
2.343 ± 0.001
69.823 ± 5.487
37.860 ± 7.440
53.842 ± 5.189
0.090 ± 0.000
RGB-DEM-Slope
82.796 ± 0.983
68.020 ± 2.915
75.408 ± 1.870
0.092 ± 0.001
2.343 ± 0.003
87.167 ± 0.735
58.743 ± 6.702
72.955 ± 3.664
0.090 ± 0.000
RGB-DEM-Slope-Thermal
82.729 ± 0.358
67.366 ± 2.948
75.048 ± 1.653
0.091 ± 0.000
2.343 ± 0.001
87.539 ± 0.393
60.726 ± 4.820
74.133 ± 2.504
0.090 ± 0.000
RGB-DEM-Slope-Thermal-Gray
86.317 ± 0.629
74.712 ± 1.215
80.515 ± 0.922
0.093 ± 0.002
2.293 ± 0.024
87.990 ± 0.428
64.877 ± 1.101
76.434 ± 0.695
0.090 ± 0.000
TABLE VII : Impact of spectral-topographic band combinations on MarsLS-Net performance.
Fig. 5 : Visual inference results of MarsLS-Net under different input-band combinations from the MMLSv2 dataset. Prediction maps use green for true positives, red for false positives, blue for false negatives, and black for true negatives.
C-PLES heads
Standard test set
Isolated test set
Params (M)
IoU BG (%) ↑
IoU FG (%) ↑
mIoU (%) ↑
Latency (s) ↓
T. time (h) ↓
IoU BG (%) ↑
IoU FG (%) ↑
mIoU (%) ↑
Latency (s) ↓
1
85.786 ± 0.780
72.652 ± 1.805
79.219 ± 1.293
0.018 ± 0.004
0.720 ± 0.002
89.033 ± 0.261
64.640 ± 1.009
76.837 ± 0.635
0.015 ± 0.000
14.624
2
86.621 ± 0.461
75.708 ± 1.089
81.165 ± 0.775
0.025 ± 0.003
1.046 ± 0.006
88.716 ± 0.088
66.645 ± 0.722
77.681 ± 0.405
0.024 ± 0.000
14.624
4
86.362 ± 0.387
74.806 ± 1.744
80.584 ± 1.557
0.041 ± 0.001
1.746 ± 0.006
88.806 ± 0.479
66.248 ± 0.454
77.527 ± 0.440
0.040 ± 0.000
14.624
TABLE VIII : Effect of the number of attention heads in the C-PLES skip-attention blocks of TransCPLES.
Bridge heads
Standard test set
Isolated test set
Params (M)
IoU BG (%) ↑
IoU FG (%) ↑
mIoU (%) ↑
Latency (s) ↓
T. time (h) ↓
IoU BG (%) ↑
IoU FG (%) ↑
mIoU (%) ↑
Latency (s) ↓
1
86.517 ± 0.437
74.923 ± 0.946
80.720 ± 0.691
0.024 ± 0.066
1.042 ± 0.006
88.640 ± 0.302
66.384 ± 0.351
77.512 ± 0.287
0.025 ± 0.000
14.624
2
86.621 ± 0.461
75.708 ± 1.089
81.165 ± 0.775
0.025 ± 0.003
1.046 ± 0.006
88.716 ± 0.088
66.645 ± 0.722
77.681 ± 0.405
0.024 ± 0.000
14.624
4
86.255 ± 0.716
74.570 ± 1.310
80.413 ± 1.012
0.026 ± 0.000
1.049 ± 0.004
88.803 ± 0.067
66.023 ± 0.756
77.413 ± 0.408
0.026 ± 0.001
14.624
TABLE IX : Effect of the number of attention heads in the Transformer bridge of TransCPLES.
Bridge layers
Standard test set
Isolated test set
Params (M)
IoU BG (%) ↑
IoU FG (%) ↑
mIoU (%) ↑
Latency (s) ↓
T. time (h) ↓
IoU BG (%) ↑
IoU FG (%) ↑
mIoU (%) ↑
Latency (s) ↓
1
86.147 ± 0.407
73.990 ± 0.493
80.068 ± 0.448
0.023 ± 0.048
1.023 ± 0.003
88.955 ± 0.120
66.111 ± 0.488
77.533 ± 0.304
0.024 ± 0.000
11.466
2
85.830 ± 0.496
73.740 ± 1.422
79.785 ± 0.951
0.026 ± 0.000
1.045 ± 0.003
88.902 ± 0.299
66.015 ± 0.717
77.458 ± 0.334
0.024 ± 0.000
12.519
4
86.621 ± 0.461
75.708 ± 1.089
81.165 ± 0.775
0.025 ± 0.003
1.046 ± 0.006
88.716 ± 0.088
66.645 ± 0.722
77.681 ± 0.405
0.024 ± 0.000
14.624
TABLE X : Effect of the number of Transformer layers in the bottleneck bridge of TransCPLES.
Variant
Standard test set
Isolated test set
Params (M)
IoU BG (%) ↑
IoU FG (%) ↑
mIoU (%) ↑
Latency (s) ↓
T. time (h) ↓
IoU BG (%) ↑
IoU FG (%) ↑
mIoU (%) ↑
Latency (s) ↓
w/o pne
86.588 ± 0.308
73.981 ± 0.470
80.285 ± 0.384
0.045 ± 0.034
0.684 ± 0.004
88.576 ± 0.223
65.550 ± 0.355
77.063 ± 0.103
0.025 ± 0.000
10.118
w/o mhsa
85.579 ± 0.392
73.213 ± 0.686
79.396 ± 0.504
0.017 ± 0.002
0.473 ± 0.002
88.866 ± 0.164
65.150 ± 1.208
77.008 ± 0.547
0.015 ± 0.000
14.622
w/o attention
84.847 ± 0.172
71.855 ± 0.319
78.351 ± 0.245
0.006 ± 0.001
0.273 ± 0.002
88.719 ± 0.080
65.615 ± 0.099
77.167 ± 0.017
0.005 ± 0.000
8.720
full
86.621 ± 0.461
75.708 ± 1.089
81.165 ± 0.775
0.025 ± 0.003
1.046 ± 0.006
88.716 ± 0.088
66.645 ± 0.722
77.681 ± 0.405
0.024 ± 0.000
14.624
TABLE XI : Component-wise ablation study of TransCPLES.
Band
Standard test set
Isolated test set
combination
IoU BG (%) ↑
IoU FG (%) ↑
mIoU (%) ↑
Latency (s) ↓
T. time (h) ↓
IoU BG (%) ↑
IoU FG (%) ↑
mIoU (%) ↑
Latency (s) ↓
RGB
80.601 ± 1.483
65.617 ± 1.774
73.109 ± 1.624
0.029 ± 0.057
1.050 ± 0.007
76.555 ± 1.991
44.210 ± 2.114
60.383 ± 2.013
0.028 ± 0.001
RGB-DEM
84.187 ± 1.746
72.083 ± 2.914
78.135 ± 2.328
0.030 ± 0.001
1.045 ± 0.001
79.139 ± 2.702
53.316 ± 4.905
66.227 ± 3.801
0.027 ± 0.000
RGB-DEM-Slope
86.777 ± 0.264
73.595 ± 0.724
80.186 ± 0.493
0.029 ± 0.000
1.066 ± 0.018
88.903 ± 0.333
62.529 ± 1.276
75.716 ± 0.749
0.027 ± 0.001
RGB-DEM-Slope-Thermal
86.484 ± 0.257
74.941 ± 0.280
80.713 ± 0.262
0.029 ± 0.000
1.046 ± 0.004
88.942 ± 0.154
64.144 ± 0.222
76.543 ± 0.091
0.027 ± 0.000
RGB-DEM-Slope-Thermal-Gray
86.621 ± 0.461
75.708 ± 1.089
81.165 ± 0.775
0.028 ± 0.003
1.046 ± 0.006
88.716 ± 0.088
66.645 ± 0.722
77.681 ± 0.405
0.026 ± 0.001
TABLE XII : Impact of spectral-topographic band combinations on TransCPLES performance.
Fig. 6 : Visual inference results of TransCPLES under different input-band combinations from the MMLSv2 dataset. Prediction maps use green for true positives, red for false positives, blue for false negatives, and black for true negatives.
Model
Precision (%) ↑
Recall (%) ↑
F1-score (%) ↑
IoU BG (%) ↑
IoU FG (%) ↑
mIoU (%) ↑
T. time (h) ↓
Latency (s) ↓
U-Net [ 43 ]
87.637 ± 2.033
78.749 ± 5.571
82.836 ± 2.109
85.035 ± 0.862
70.738 ± 3.106
77.887 ± 1.981
0.276 ± 0.042
0.014 ± 0.018
ResUNet [ 44 ]
86.345 ± 1.329
85.115 ± 3.080
85.690 ± 1.080
86.518 ± 0.583
74.973 ± 1.644
80.746 ± 1.096
0.375 ± 0.064
0.006 ± 0.000
UNet++ [ 45 ]
87.019 ± 0.982
83.960 ± 0.815
85.457 ± 0.468
86.501 ± 0.458
74.609 ± 0.712
80.555 ± 0.576
0.411 ± 0.003
0.008 ± 0.000
SK-UNet [ 46 ]
88.469 ± 1.933
82.011 ± 3.698
85.055 ± 1.168
86.540 ± 0.439
74.008 ± 1.770
80.274 ± 1.093
0.542 ± 0.001
0.014 ± 0.002
DeepLabV3+ [ 47 ]
85.764 ± 1.531
83.961 ± 2.235
84.830 ± 0.835
85.822 ± 0.626
73.662 ± 1.262
79.742 ± 0.911
0.547 ± 0.099
0.008 ± 0.003
SegFormer [ 48 ]
83.627 ± 0.196
86.616 ± 0.750
85.095 ± 0.442
85.486 ± 0.329
74.058 ± 0.668
79.772 ± 0.498
2.717 ± 0.834
0.040 ± 0.000
TABLE XIII : Performance comparison on the standard test set.
Fig. 7 : Qualitative segmentation comparison on the standard test set. Prediction maps use green for true positives, red for false positives, blue for false negatives, and black for true negatives.
Model
Precision (%) ↑
Recall (%) ↑
F1-score (%) ↑
IoU BG (%) ↑
IoU FG (%) ↑
mIoU (%) ↑
IoU FG Drop ↓
mIoU Drop ↓
U-Net [ 43 ]
74.965 ± 4.558
80.288 ± 6.180
77.293 ± 0.396
87.513 ± 0.987
62.991 ± 0.526
75.252 ± 0.415
7.747 ± 2.746
2.635 ± 2.281
ResUNet [ 44 ]
70.589 ± 3.851
82.281 ± 6.067
75.781 ± 0.819
86.014 ± 0.969
61.011 ± 1.063
73.512 ± 0.626
13.962 ± 1.204
7.234 ± 1.258
UNet++ [ 45 ]
69.542 ± 1.982
84.078 ± 2.665
76.078 ± 0.384
85.860 ± 0.618
61.393 ± 0.499
73.626 ± 0.481
13.217 ± 0.261
6.929 ± 0.379
SK-UNet [ 46 ]
69.950 ± 1.965
80.709 ± 4.944
74.845 ± 1.083
85.648 ± 0.269
59.810 ± 1.376
72.729 ± 0.560
14.198 ± 0.848
7.545 ± 0.718
DeepLabV3+ [ 47 ]
70.946 ± 4.612
84.827 ± 2.384
77.159 ± 1.894
86.491 ± 1.900
62.837 ± 2.489
74.664 ± 2.191
10.825 ± 3.719
5.078 ± 3.047
SegFormer [ 48 ]
71.818 ± 1.342
77.555 ± 2.671
74.553 ± 1.232
86.096 ± 0.528
59.441 ± 1.558
72.768 ± 1.003
14.617 ± 2.068
7.004 ± 1.335
TABLE XIV : Model performance on the isolated test set under geographic shift. Performance drop is reported in percentage points as: Standard - Isolated .
Fig. 8 : Qualitative segmentation comparison on the isolated test set. Prediction maps use green for true positives, red for false positives, blue for false negatives, and black for true negatives.
Latency (s)
Model
T. time (h)
Mean epoch (s)
Standard
Isolated
FLOPS (G)
MACs (G)
Params (M)
U-Net [ 43 ]
0.276 ± 0.042
5.860 ± 1.216
0.014 ± 0.018
0.012 ± 0.000
24.269
12.134
28.957
ResUNet [ 44 ]
0.375 ± 0.064
8.243 ± 2.102
0.006 ± 0.000
0.007 ± 0.000
5.462
2.731
32.534
UNet++ [ 45 ]
0.411 ± 0.003
8.863 ± 0.060
0.008 ± 0.000
0.008 ± 0.000
28.898
14.449
48.998
SK-UNet [ 46 ]
0.542 ± 0.001
12.304 ± 0.023
0.014 ± 0.002
0.012 ± 0.000
5.704
2.852
34.457
DeepLabV3+ [ 47 ]
0.547 ± 0.099
12.148 ± 3.384
0.008 ± 0.003
0.006 ± 0.000
4.711
2.355
26.690
TABLE XV : Computational efficiency comparison across segmentation models.
Fig. 9 : Accuracy-efficiency trade-off across segmentation models. (a) Isolated mIoU versus inference latency on the isolated test set. (b) Isolated mIoU versus total training time. (c) Computational complexity in terms of FLOPs and trainable parameters.
Model
Standard AP FG (%) ↑
Isolated AP FG (%) ↑
AP FG Drop ↓
U-Net [ 43 ]
90.716 ± 0.285
78.645 ± 1.359
12.072 ± 1.530
ResUNet [ 44 ]
91.122 ± 1.919
76.825 ± 0.253
14.297 ± 1.827
UNet++ [ 45 ]
92.221 ± 0.174
77.968 ± 0.383
14.252 ± 0.545
SK-UNet [ 46 ]
91.977 ± 0.703
76.888 ± 0.876
15.089 ± 1.577
DeepLabV3+ [ 47 ]
91.312 ± 1.045
78.958 ± 2.755
12.354 ± 3.481
SegFormer [ 48 ]
91.612 ± 0.658
78.207 ± 2.754
13.405 ± 2.678
TABLE XVI : Average precision comparison for the foreground landslide class.
Fig. 10 : Foreground precision-recall curves on the standard and isolated test sets.
Model
Standard test set
Isolated test set
Precision (%) ↑
Recall (%) ↑
F1-score (%) ↑
IoU (%) ↑
Precision (%) ↑
Recall (%) ↑
F1-score (%) ↑
IoU (%) ↑
U-Net [ 43 ]
29.258 ± 1.718
41.091 ± 2.447
34.179 ± 2.018
19.264 ± 1.290
37.844 ± 0.417
46.998 ± 1.581
41.917 ± 0.602
24.435 ± 0.348
ResUNet [ 44 ]
34.374 ± 1.120
40.842 ± 2.101
37.323 ± 1.438
21.233 ± 0.960
37.229 ± 0.482
41.868 ± 2.707
39.388 ± 1.350
22.610 ± 0.855
UNet++ [ 45 ]
35.856 ± 1.570
39.446 ± 0.409
37.556 ± 0.988
21.265 ± 0.558
39.713 ± 1.012
42.225 ± 1.484
40.922 ± 0.998
23.435 ± 0.579
SK-UNet [ 46 ]
35.340 ± 0.410
38.547 ± 1.514
36.859 ± 0.522
20.820 ± 0.351
38.385 ± 1.196
41.359 ± 2.041
39.813 ± 1.569
22.844 ± 0.977
DeepLabV3+ [ 47 ]
31.729 ± 1.167
39.435 ± 0.253
35.160 ± 0.814
19.889 ± 0.469
37.445 ± 2.943
42.560 ± 1.796
39.829 ± 2.457
22.912 ± 1.633
TABLE XVII : Boundary delineation accuracy across evaluated models under a 1-pixel tolerance.
TABLE XVIII : Performance stratified by foreground-area ratio on the standard and isolated test sets. Small, medium, and large correspond to foreground ratios of [0,10) %, [10,40) %, and [40,100] %, respectively.
Fig. 12 : Qualitative segmentation inference stratified by foreground-area ratio on the isolated test set. Samples are grouped according to the foreground occupancy of the ground-truth mask. Prediction maps use green for true positives, red for false positives, blue for false negatives, and black for true negatives.
Automated segmentation of Martian landslides, particularly in tectonically active regions such as Valles Marineris,is important for planetary geology, hazard assessment, and future robotic exploration. However, detecting landslides from planetary imagery is challenging due to the heterogeneous nature of available sensing modalities and the limited number of labeled samples. Each observation combines RGB imagery with geophysical measurements such as digital elevation models, slope maps, thermal inertia, and contextual grayscale imagery, which differ significantly in resolution and statistical properties. To address these challenges, we propose DualSwinFusionSeg, a multimodal segmentation architecture that separates modality-specific feature extraction and performs multi-scale cross-modal fusion. The model employs two parallel Swin Transformer V2 encoders to independently process RGB and auxiliary geophysical inputs, producing hierarchical feature representations. Corresponding features from the two streams are fused at multiple scales and decoded using a UNet++ decoder with dense nested skip connections to preserve fine boundary details. Extensive ablation studies evaluate modality contributions, loss functions, decoder architectures, and fusion strategies. Experiments on the MMLSv2 dataset from the PBVS 2026 Mars-LS Challenge show that modality-specific encoders and simple concatenation-based fusion improve segmentation accuracy under limited training data. The final model achieves 0.867 mIoU and 0.905 F1 on the development benchmark and 0.783 mIoU on the held-out test set, demonstrating strong performance for multimodal planetary surface segmentation.
Shahriar Kabir, Abdullah Muhammed Amimul Ehsan, Istiak Ahmmed Rifti +1
Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Bangladesh · University of California, Riverside, USA
Planetary surface exploration missions rely increasingly on autonomous robotic platforms capable of interpreting complex terrain to ensure safe navigation, enable targeted science, and improve operational efficiency, as demonstrated across past Mars missions from Viking through Perseverance. Among the key perception capabilities, landform classification provides contextual information for landing site selection and scientific analysis, while boulder segmentation supports hazard assessment and path planning. This paper presents MANTLE, a multi-task adaptive network for terrain and landform extraction. The model uses a shared DINOv2 backbone for high-level feature extraction with task-specific heads: a classification head for large-scale landform classification, and a segmentation head for pixel-wise boulder localization, each trained on curated datasets built respectively from HiRISE orbital imagery and MSL surface-level imagery. The classification head achieved a test accuracy of 92.56% across seven Martian terrain classes, while the segmentation head achieved a validation IoU of 0.753 and showed strong cross-sol generalization on a held-out test set from previously unseen rover traverses. A key advantage of MANTLE is its modular, extensible design, formalized here as the Modular Uplink Principle: only a shared, frozen backbone needs to remain onboard, while subsequent perception capabilities are trained on Earth as lightweight task-specific heads and uplinked without retraining the full model. This work demonstrates two such high-impact capabilities, terrain classification and boulder segmentation, as an initial realization of a framework built to support many more over a mission's lifetime. With this foundation, future explorers need not arrive on Mars fully formed, but can continue to learn, adapt, and grow more capable with every uplink.
Pranav Durai, Gary Doran
Stanford Center for Innovation in In Vivo Imaging Stanford University School of Medicine 318 Campus Drive, Room S040, Stanford, CA 94305, USA · Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA
Landslide detection from high resolution satellite imagery is a critical task for disaster response and risk assessment, yet the relative effectiveness of modern segmentation architectures and finetuning strategies for this problem remains insufficiently understood. In this work, we present a systematic benchmarking study of convolutional neural networks, transformer based segmentation models, and large pre-trained foundation models for landslide detection. Using the Globally Distributed Coseismic Landslide Dataset (GDCLD) dataset, we evaluate representative CNN- and transformer-based segmentation models alongside large pretrained foundation models under consistent training and evaluation protocols. In addition, we compare full fine-tuning with parameter-efficient fine-tuning methods, including LoRA and AdaLoRA, to assess their performance efficiency tradeoffs. Experimental results show that transformer-based models achieve strong segmentation performance, while parameter efficient finetuning reduces trainable parameters by up to 95% with comparable accuracy to full finetuning. We further analyze generalization under distribution shift by comparing validation and held-out test performance.