IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing (Jan 2024)
Deformable Transformer and Spectral U-Net for Large-Scale Hyperspectral Image Semantic Segmentation
Abstract
Remote sensing semantic segmentation tasks aim to automatically extract land cover types by accurately classifying each pixel. However, large-scale hyperspectral remote sensing images possess rich spectral information, complex and diverse spatial distributions, significant scale variations, and a wide variety of land cover types with detailed features, which pose significant challenges for segmentation tasks. To overcome these challenges, this study introduces a U-shaped semantic segmentation network that combines global spectral attention and deformable Transformer for segmenting large-scale hyperspectral remote sensing images. First, convolution and global spectral attention are utilized to emphasize features with the richest spectral information, effectively extracting spectral characteristics. Second, deformable self-attention is employed to capture global-local information, addressing the complex scale and distribution of objects. Finally, deformable cross-attention is used to aggregate deep and shallow features, enabling comprehensive semantic information mining. Experiments conducted on a large-scale hyperspectral remote sensing dataset (WHU-OHS) demonstrate that: first, in different cities including Changchun, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Karamay, DTSU-Net achieved the highest performance in terms of mIoU compared to the baseline methods, reaching 56.19%, 37.89%, 52.90%, and 63.54%, with an average improvement of 7.57% to 34.13%, respectively; second, module ablation experiments confirm the effectiveness of our proposed modules, and deformable Transformer significantly reduces training costs compared to conventional Transformers; third, our approach achieves the highest mIoU of 57.22% across the entire dataset, with a balanced trade-off between accuracy and parameter efficiency, demonstrating an improvement of 1.65% to 56.58% compared to the baseline methods.
Keywords