luisgomezchova commited on
Commit
daf0607
1 Parent(s): 93e9c59

Update README.md

Browse files
Files changed (1) hide show
  1. README.md +72 -37
README.md CHANGED
@@ -12,18 +12,17 @@ tags:
12
  - super-resolution
13
  ---
14
 
15
- # **SUPERXI (Draft)**
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
  ## **Introduction**
20
 
21
- Super-resolution (SR) techniques, such as Sentinel-2 and Landsat, are becoming more popular in improving the spatial
22
- resolution of freely available satellite imagery. Advocates claim that SR as a preprocessing can significantly
23
  improve the accuracy of various remote sensing downstream tasks, including road detection, crop delineation,
24
- and object recognition. However, some researchers contend that the benefits of SR are primarily aesthetic,
25
- suggesting that its main value lies in creating more visually appealing basemaps or aiding in visual interpretation
26
- by non-experts.
27
 
28
  Another criticism of SR is that it can degrade the original input data, potentially leading to incorrect conclusions.
29
  However, some SR methods appear more conservative than others in preserving reflectance integrity. Given this,
@@ -31,22 +30,45 @@ a reliable benchmark is essential for providing quantitative assessments of the
31
  such benchmarks, it remains difficult to conclusively determine the true impact of SR techniques on remote sensing data.
32
 
33
  To establish a reliable framework, we propose the creation of a dedicated working group aimed at intercomparing super-resolution
34
- algorithms for Sentinel-2 data (SUPERXI). SR algorithms developed by teams from universities, research centers, industries,
35
- and space agencies are encouraged to participate in SUPERXI. This initiative will use opensr-test datasets and propose metrics
36
  to evaluate the consistency with the original input data and the reliability of the high-frequency details introduced by the
37
  SR models.
38
 
39
- ## **Datasets**
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
40
 
41
  About the high-resolution (HR) reference, we are considering:
42
 
43
- - **naip:** A set of 62 orthophotos mainly from agricultural and forest regions in the USA.
44
  - **spot:** A set of 10 SPOT images obtained from Worldstrat.
45
- - **spain_urban:** A set of 20 orthophotos, primarily from urban areas of Spain, including roads.
46
- - **spain_crops:** A set of 20 orthophotos, primarily taken from agricultural areas near cities in Spain.
47
  - **venus:** A set of 60 VENµS images obtained from SEN2VENµS.
48
 
49
- Each HR reference includes Sentinel-2 imagery preprocessed at 1C and 2A levels. Here is an example of how
50
  to load each dataset.
51
 
52
  ```{python}
@@ -57,38 +79,37 @@ lr, hr = dataset["L2A"], dataset["HRharm"]
57
  ```
58
 
59
 
60
- ## **Metrics**
61
-
62
 
63
  We propose the following metrics to assess the consistency of SR models:
64
 
65
- - **Reflectance:** This metric evaluates how SR affects the reflectance norm of the LR image, utilizing the Mean Absolute
66
  Error (MAE) distance by default. Lower values indicate better reflectance consistency. The SR image is downsampled to LR
67
- resolution using a triangular anti-aliasing filter and downsampling by a factor of 2.
68
 
69
  - **Spectral:** This metric measures how SR impacts the spectral signature of the LR image, employing the Spectral Angle
70
  Distance (SAM) by default. Lower values indicate better spectral consistency, with angles measured in degrees. The SR image
71
- is downsampled to LR resolution using a triangular anti-aliasing filter and downsampling by a factor of 2.
72
 
73
 
74
  - **Spatial:** This metric assesses the spatial alignment between SR and LR images, utilizing the Phase Correlation
75
  Coefficient (PCC) by default. Some SR models introduce spatial shifts, which this metric detects. The SR image is downsampled
76
- to LR resolution using a triangular anti-aliasing filter and downsampling by a factor of 2.
77
 
78
  We propose three metrics to evaluate the high-frequency details introduced by SR models. The sum of these metrics always equals 1:
79
 
80
- - **im_score:** This metric quantifies the distance between the SR and HR images. A value closer to 1 indicates that the SR model
81
- closely corresponds to the HR image.
82
 
83
- - **om_score:** This metric measures the distance between the SR and LR images. A value closer to 1 suggests that the SR model
84
- closely compares the LR image downsampled with bilinear interpolation.
85
 
86
- - **ha_score:** This metric evaluates the distance between SR and the HR and LR images. A value closer to 1 indicates that the
87
- SR model deviates significantly from both references.
88
 
89
 
90
 
91
- ## **Experiment**
92
 
93
  We are planning two experiments for both x4 and x2 scale factors. Participants are encouraged to submit their SR models
94
  for both scales. Additionally, models designed solely for the x4 scale will be assessed at the x2 scale by downsampling
@@ -97,21 +118,22 @@ the SR image by a factor of 2.
97
  In each experiment, we will employ two distinct approaches to evaluate the high-frequency details introduced by SR models.
98
  The first approach utilizes the Mean Absolute Error (MAE) as the distance metric for assessing high-frequency details.
99
  Alternatively, the second approach employs LPIPS. While MAE is sensitive to the intensity of high-frequency details,
100
- LPIPS is more sensitized to their structural nuances. Contrasting the outcomes of these two metrics can offer a comprehensive
101
  understanding of the high-frequency details introduced by SR models. LPIPS metrics are consistently run on 32x32 patches
102
  of the HR image, while MAE is computed on 2x2 patches for x2 scale and 4x4 patches for x4 scale evaluations.
103
 
104
- ## **Teams**
105
-
106
- TODO
107
 
 
108
 
109
- ## **Work plan**
110
 
 
111
 
112
- - Each team will submit their SR models up to the deadline which is set to **TODO**.
113
 
114
- - We will have two different types of models: **open-source** and **closed-source**. To be considered open-source, the code must be available in this repository within a folder named as the model name. Keep the code as simple as possible. See examples using torch, diffuser, and tensorflow libraries [here](), [here](), and [here](). The closed-source models are required to **only provide the results in GeoTIFF format**. See an example [here]().
 
 
 
115
 
116
  - The submission will be made through a [pull request](https://huggingface.co/docs/hub/en/repositories-pull-requests-discussions) to this repository. The pull request **MUST** include the `metadata.json` file and the results in GeoTIFF format. The results must be in the same resolution as the HR image.
117
  We expect the following information in the metadata.json file:
@@ -129,13 +151,26 @@ We expect the following information in the metadata.json file:
129
  }
130
  ```
131
 
132
- - The SUPERXI working group will evaluate the SR models after the deadline using the metrics discussed above.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
133
 
134
- - After the metric estimation, we will first independently contact the teams providing the results. If there are any issues with the submission, we will ask for clarification, and the team will have up to two weeks to provide the necessary corrections.
135
 
136
- - Questions and discussions will be held in the discussion section of this [repository](https://huggingface.co/isp-uv-es/superXI/discussions). **We will not run online meetings. ** We will inform you of the progress of the SUPERXI working group through the discussion section and by email.
137
 
138
- - After all the participants have provided the necessary corrections, we will publish the results in the discussion section of this repository. Then, we will prepare a dedicated website to present the results and submit a paper to a remote sensing journal.
139
 
140
  - The paper will be prepared in overleaf, and all the participants will be invited to contribute to it.
141
 
 
12
  - super-resolution
13
  ---
14
 
15
+ # **SUPERIX: Super-Resolution Intercomparison Exercise**
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
  ## **Introduction**
20
 
21
+ Super-resolution (SR) techniques are becoming more popular in improving the spatial resolution of freely
22
+ available satellite imagery, such as Sentinel-2 and Landsat. SR could significantly
23
  improve the accuracy of various remote sensing downstream tasks, including road detection, crop delineation,
24
+ and object recognition. However, some researchers argue that the benefits of SR are primarily aesthetic,
25
+ suggesting that its main value lies in creating more visually appealing maps or aiding in visual interpretation.
 
26
 
27
  Another criticism of SR is that it can degrade the original input data, potentially leading to incorrect conclusions.
28
  However, some SR methods appear more conservative than others in preserving reflectance integrity. Given this,
 
30
  such benchmarks, it remains difficult to conclusively determine the true impact of SR techniques on remote sensing data.
31
 
32
  To establish a reliable framework, we propose the creation of a dedicated working group aimed at intercomparing super-resolution
33
+ algorithms for Sentinel-2 data (SUPERIX). SR algorithms developed by teams from universities, research centers, industry,
34
+ and space agencies are encouraged to participate in SUPERIX. This initiative will use OpenSR-test datasets and proposed metrics
35
  to evaluate the consistency with the original input data and the reliability of the high-frequency details introduced by the
36
  SR models.
37
 
38
+ Summarizing, multiple methods have been developed to address the problem of super-resolution in satellite imagery,
39
+ but very few studies were carried out to quantitatively inter-compare state-of-the-art methods in this domain.
40
+
41
+ - SUPERIX aims at inter-comparing SR algorithms for ESA Sentinel-2 mission.
42
+ - SUPERIX will involve defining reference datasets, metrics and an analysis framework.
43
+ - SUPERIX should allow to identify strengths and weaknesses of existing algorithms and potential areas of improvements.
44
+
45
+
46
+ ## **Teams and SR Algorithms**
47
+
48
+ Are you interested? Contact us!
49
+
50
+
51
+ ## **Validation Datasets**
52
+
53
+ Accurate validation datasets will allow a detailed analysis of SR strengths and weaknesses.
54
+
55
+ Validation datasets might vary in the way they are sampled and generated:
56
+ - cross-sensor or synthetic
57
+ - spatial scale factor
58
+ - geographical distribution
59
+
60
+ Performance of SR algorithms will vary also depending on the reference dataset, which can be attributed to differences in
61
+ radiometry, spectral response, spatial alignment, effective spatial resolution, considered landscapes, etc.
62
 
63
  About the high-resolution (HR) reference, we are considering:
64
 
65
+ - **naip:** A set of 62 RGBNIR orthophotos mainly from agricultural and forest regions in the USA.
66
  - **spot:** A set of 10 SPOT images obtained from Worldstrat.
67
+ - **spain_urban:** A set of 20 RGBNIR orthophotos, primarily from urban areas of Spain, including roads.
68
+ - **spain_crops:** A set of 20 RGBNIR orthophotos, primarily taken from agricultural areas near cities in Spain.
69
  - **venus:** A set of 60 VENµS images obtained from SEN2VENµS.
70
 
71
+ Each HR reference includes the corresponding Sentinel-2 imagery preprocessed at 1C and 2A levels. Here is an example of how
72
  to load each dataset.
73
 
74
  ```{python}
 
79
  ```
80
 
81
 
82
+ ## **Quality Metrics**
 
83
 
84
  We propose the following metrics to assess the consistency of SR models:
85
 
86
+ - **Reflectance:** This metric evaluates how SR affects the reflectance of the LR image, utilizing the Mean Absolute
87
  Error (MAE) distance by default. Lower values indicate better reflectance consistency. The SR image is downsampled to LR
88
+ resolution using a triangular anti-aliasing filter and downsampling by the scale factor (bilinear interpolation).
89
 
90
  - **Spectral:** This metric measures how SR impacts the spectral signature of the LR image, employing the Spectral Angle
91
  Distance (SAM) by default. Lower values indicate better spectral consistency, with angles measured in degrees. The SR image
92
+ is downsampled to LR resolution using a triangular anti-aliasing filter and downsampling by the scale factor (bilinear interpolation).
93
 
94
 
95
  - **Spatial:** This metric assesses the spatial alignment between SR and LR images, utilizing the Phase Correlation
96
  Coefficient (PCC) by default. Some SR models introduce spatial shifts, which this metric detects. The SR image is downsampled
97
+ to LR resolution using a triangular anti-aliasing filter and downsampling by the scale factor (bilinear interpolation).
98
 
99
  We propose three metrics to evaluate the high-frequency details introduced by SR models. The sum of these metrics always equals 1:
100
 
101
+ - **Improvements (im_score):** This metric quantifies the similarity between the SR and HR images.
102
+ A value closer to 1 indicates that the SR model closely corresponds to the HR image (i.e. improves the high-frequency details).
103
 
104
+ - **Omissions (om_score):** This metric measures the similarity between the SR and LR images. A value closer to 1 suggests that the SR model
105
+ closely compares the LR image downsampled with bilinear interpolation (i.e. omits high-frequency details present in HR but not in LR).
106
 
107
+ - **Halucinations (ha_score):** This metric evaluates the similarity between SR and the HR and LR images. A value closer to 1 indicates that the
108
+ SR model deviates significantly from both references (i.e. hallucinates introducing high-frequency details not present in HR).
109
 
110
 
111
 
112
+ ## **Proposed Experiments**
113
 
114
  We are planning two experiments for both x4 and x2 scale factors. Participants are encouraged to submit their SR models
115
  for both scales. Additionally, models designed solely for the x4 scale will be assessed at the x2 scale by downsampling
 
118
  In each experiment, we will employ two distinct approaches to evaluate the high-frequency details introduced by SR models.
119
  The first approach utilizes the Mean Absolute Error (MAE) as the distance metric for assessing high-frequency details.
120
  Alternatively, the second approach employs LPIPS. While MAE is sensitive to the intensity of high-frequency details,
121
+ LPIPS is more sensitized to their structural differences. Contrasting the outcomes of these two metrics can offer a comprehensive
122
  understanding of the high-frequency details introduced by SR models. LPIPS metrics are consistently run on 32x32 patches
123
  of the HR image, while MAE is computed on 2x2 patches for x2 scale and 4x4 patches for x4 scale evaluations.
124
 
 
 
 
125
 
126
+ ## **Proposed Protocol**
127
 
 
128
 
129
+ - The SUPERIX working group should first agree on the validation datasets appropriate for SR, the definition of best quality metrics, and how quantify hallucinations.
130
 
131
+ - Each team will submit their SR models up to the deadline.
132
 
133
+ - We will have two different types of models: **open-source** and **closed-source**.
134
+ To be considered open-source, the code must be available in this repository within a folder named as the model name.
135
+ Keep the code as simple as possible. See examples using torch, diffuser, and tensorflow libraries [here](), [here](), and [here]().
136
+ The closed-source models are required to **only provide the results in GeoTIFF format**. See an example [here]().
137
 
138
  - The submission will be made through a [pull request](https://huggingface.co/docs/hub/en/repositories-pull-requests-discussions) to this repository. The pull request **MUST** include the `metadata.json` file and the results in GeoTIFF format. The results must be in the same resolution as the HR image.
139
  We expect the following information in the metadata.json file:
 
151
  }
152
  ```
153
 
154
+ - The SUPERIX working group will evaluate the SR models after the deadline using the metrics discussed above.
155
+
156
+ - After the metrics estimation, we will first independently contact the teams providing the results. If there are any issues with
157
+ the submission, we will ask for clarification, and the team will have up to two weeks to provide the necessary corrections.
158
+
159
+ - Questions and discussions will be held in the discussion section of this [repository](https://huggingface.co/isp-uv-es/superIX/discussions).
160
+ The progress of the SUPERIX working group will be informed through the discussion section and by email.
161
+
162
+ - After all the participants have provided the necessary corrections, the results will be published in the discussion section of this repository.
163
+
164
+
165
+ ## **Expected Outcomes**
166
+
167
+ - No clear superiority of any methodology in all metrics is expected.
168
 
169
+ - Analysis on validation scenes with major discrepancies between algorithms will be carried out.
170
 
171
+ - A dedicated website and a technical report will be prepared to present the results and recommendations.
172
 
173
+ - A research publication will be submitted to a remote sensing journal.
174
 
175
  - The paper will be prepared in overleaf, and all the participants will be invited to contribute to it.
176