[go: up one dir, main page]

 
 
Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (1)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = Gaussian pyramid coupling quadtree

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
23 pages, 20794 KiB  
Article
Matching of Remote Sensing Images with Complex Background Variations via Siamese Convolutional Neural Network
by Haiqing He, Min Chen, Ting Chen and Dajun Li
Remote Sens. 2018, 10(2), 355; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10020355 - 24 Feb 2018
Cited by 74 | Viewed by 7951
Abstract
Feature-based matching methods have been widely used in remote sensing image matching given their capability to achieve excellent performance despite image geometric and radiometric distortions. However, most of the feature-based methods are unreliable for complex background variations, because the gradient or other image [...] Read more.
Feature-based matching methods have been widely used in remote sensing image matching given their capability to achieve excellent performance despite image geometric and radiometric distortions. However, most of the feature-based methods are unreliable for complex background variations, because the gradient or other image grayscale information used to construct the feature descriptor is sensitive to image background variations. Recently, deep learning-based methods have been proven suitable for high-level feature representation and comparison in image matching. Inspired by the progresses made in deep learning, a new technical framework for remote sensing image matching based on the Siamese convolutional neural network is presented in this paper. First, a Siamese-type network architecture is designed to simultaneously learn the features and the corresponding similarity metric from labeled training examples of matching and non-matching true-color patch pairs. In the proposed network, two streams of convolutional and pooling layers sharing identical weights are arranged without the manually designed features. The number of convolutional layers is determined based on the factors that affect image matching. The sigmoid function is employed to compute the matching and non-matching probabilities in the output layer. Second, a gridding sub-pixel Harris algorithm is used to obtain the accurate localization of candidate matches. Third, a Gaussian pyramid coupling quadtree is adopted to gradually narrow down the searching space of the candidate matches, and multiscale patches are compared synchronously. Subsequently, a similarity measure based on the output of the sigmoid is adopted to find the initial matches. Finally, the random sample consensus algorithm and the whole-to-local quadratic polynomial constraints are used to remove false matches. In the experiments, different types of satellite datasets, such as ZY3, GF1, IKONOS, and Google Earth images, with complex background variations are used to evaluate the performance of the proposed method. The experimental results demonstrate that the proposed method, which can significantly improve the matching performance of multi-temporal remote sensing images with complex background variations, is better than the state-of-the-art matching methods. In our experiments, the proposed method obtained a large number of evenly distributed matches (at least 10 times more than other methods) and achieved a high accuracy (less than 1 pixel in terms of root mean square error). Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Multisensor Data Fusion in Remote Sensing)
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>Architecture of Siamese convolutional neural network.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Schematic of the proposed matching framework.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Multi-temporal Google Earth images of the same area from 2008 to 2017. Images are affected by complex background variations, including small rotation and translation, nonlinear geometric deformation, shadow, image quality degradation, and land cover changes.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Matching and non-matching probabilities between multi-temporal remote image patches in <a href="#remotesensing-10-00355-f003" class="html-fig">Figure 3</a>. (<b>a</b>–<b>j</b>) show the statistical results from 2008 to 2017.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4 Cont.
<p>Matching and non-matching probabilities between multi-temporal remote image patches in <a href="#remotesensing-10-00355-f003" class="html-fig">Figure 3</a>. (<b>a</b>–<b>j</b>) show the statistical results from 2008 to 2017.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Patch comparison via GPCQ. The red rectangles are the patches, which are located at the top layer of Gaussian image pyramid. For example, four patches with sizes <math display="inline"> <semantics> <mrow> <mi>d</mi> <mo>×</mo> <mi>d</mi> </mrow> </semantics> </math> are found in the top pyramid layer with size <math display="inline"> <semantics> <mrow> <mn>2</mn> <mi>d</mi> <mo>×</mo> <mn>2</mn> <mi>d</mi> </mrow> </semantics> </math>, in which <math display="inline"> <semantics> <mi>d</mi> </semantics> </math> is set to 96 pixels. The green and blue rectangles are the patches in the second and third layers, respectively. SCNN is used to compare the similarity between the patches in the reference and sensed images.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Local outlier elimination. <math display="inline"> <semantics> <mrow> <mrow> <mo>(</mo> <mrow> <msub> <mi>P</mi> <mn>1</mn> </msub> <mo>,</mo> <msub> <mi>P</mi> <mn>2</mn> </msub> </mrow> <mo>)</mo> </mrow> </mrow> </semantics> </math> denotes the initial matches of the reference and sensed images. <math display="inline"> <semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mi>P</mi> <mn>2</mn> <mo>'</mo> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics> </math> is estimated from <math display="inline"> <semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>P</mi> <mn>1</mn> </msub> </mrow> </semantics> </math> based on local polynomial coefficients.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Experimental image pairs. (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) is a pair of ZY3 (fusion image obtained from multispectral and panchromatic images) and Google Earth images in an urban area in China. (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) is a pair of GF1 (fusion image obtained from multispectral and panchromatic images) and Google Earth images in China. (<b>e</b>,<b>f</b>) is a pair of ZY3 and GF1 images with large background variations in a mountain area in China. (<b>g</b>,<b>h</b>) is a pair of IKONOS and Google Earth images with coastline in Australia. The images in (<b>i</b>,<b>j</b>) are a pair of Google Earth images with farmlands in different seasons in the United States. (<b>k</b>,<b>l</b>) is a pair of Google Earth images in China, in which (<b>l</b>) is contaminated by cloud and haze.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Examples of feature visualization learned by the proposed SCNN. (<b>a</b>), (<b>b</b>), (<b>c</b>), (<b>d</b>), (<b>e</b>) and (<b>f</b>) are the visual features in Pair1, Pair2, Pair3, Pair4, Pair5 and Pair6 respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Comparison of average accuracies for each round between training (<b>a</b>) and test (<b>b</b>) data with layer−, layer+, and our network.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Comparison of (<b>a</b>) NCM, (<b>b</b>) MP, and (<b>c</b>) RMSE values with different deep SCNNs.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Comparison of (<b>a</b>) NCM, (<b>b</b>) MP, and (<b>c</b>) RMSE between gridding S-Harris and non-gridding S-Harris.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Comparison of (<b>a</b>) NCM, (<b>b</b>) MP, and (<b>c</b>) RMSE with and without GPCQs.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Matching and registration results of the proposed matching framework. The matches of Pairs 1–6 are pinned to the top-left two images of (<b>a</b>–<b>f</b>) using yellow dots. The two small sub-regions marked by red boxes correspond to the two conjugated patches P1 and P2. The top-right image shows the registration result of the checkerboard overlay of the image pair. The four small sub-regions marked by green, blue, magenta, and cyan are enlarged to show the registration details.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13 Cont.
<p>Matching and registration results of the proposed matching framework. The matches of Pairs 1–6 are pinned to the top-left two images of (<b>a</b>–<b>f</b>) using yellow dots. The two small sub-regions marked by red boxes correspond to the two conjugated patches P1 and P2. The top-right image shows the registration result of the checkerboard overlay of the image pair. The four small sub-regions marked by green, blue, magenta, and cyan are enlarged to show the registration details.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Matching results of SIFT. The matches of Pairs 1, 2, 3, and 5 are shown in (<b>a</b>), (<b>b</b>), (<b>c</b>), and (<b>d</b>), respectively. No correct match is obtained for the images of Pairs 4 and 6 (i.e., see <a href="#remotesensing-10-00355-t002" class="html-table">Table 2</a>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 14 Cont.
<p>Matching results of SIFT. The matches of Pairs 1, 2, 3, and 5 are shown in (<b>a</b>), (<b>b</b>), (<b>c</b>), and (<b>d</b>), respectively. No correct match is obtained for the images of Pairs 4 and 6 (i.e., see <a href="#remotesensing-10-00355-t002" class="html-table">Table 2</a>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Matching results using Jiang’s method [<a href="#B5-remotesensing-10-00355" class="html-bibr">5</a>]. (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) are the matching results of Pairs 1–3. No correct match is obtained for the images of Pairs 4–6 (i.e., see <a href="#remotesensing-10-00355-t002" class="html-table">Table 2</a>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>Matching results using Shi’s method [<a href="#B20-remotesensing-10-00355" class="html-bibr">20</a>]. (<b>a</b>–<b>e</b>) are the matching results of Pairs 1–5. No correct match is obtained for the image of Pair 6 (i.e., see <a href="#remotesensing-10-00355-t002" class="html-table">Table 2</a>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 17
<p>Matching results using Zagoruyko’s method [<a href="#B19-remotesensing-10-00355" class="html-bibr">19</a>]. (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) are the matching results of Pairs 1 and 2, respectively. No correct match is obtained for the images of Pairs 3–6 (i.e., see <a href="#remotesensing-10-00355-t002" class="html-table">Table 2</a>). (<b>c</b>–<b>f</b>) highlights the ellipse and centroids of MSER of Pairs 3–6.</p>
Full article ">Figure 17 Cont.
<p>Matching results using Zagoruyko’s method [<a href="#B19-remotesensing-10-00355" class="html-bibr">19</a>]. (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) are the matching results of Pairs 1 and 2, respectively. No correct match is obtained for the images of Pairs 3–6 (i.e., see <a href="#remotesensing-10-00355-t002" class="html-table">Table 2</a>). (<b>c</b>–<b>f</b>) highlights the ellipse and centroids of MSER of Pairs 3–6.</p>
Full article ">
Back to TopTop