The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Critical Comparison Among Pansharpening Algorithms
Abstract
Pansharpening aims at fusing a multispectral and a panchromatic image, featuring the result of the processing with the spectral resolution of the former and the spatial resolution of the latter. In the last decades, many algorithms addressing this task have been presented in the literature. However, the lack of universally recognized evaluation criteria, available image data sets for benchmarking, and standardized implementations of the algorithms makes a thorough evaluation and comparison of the different pansharpening techniques difficult to achieve. In this paper, the authors attempt to fill this gap by providing a critical description and extensive comparisons of some of the main state-of-the-art pansharpening methods. In greater details, several pansharpening algorithms belonging to the component substitution or multiresolution analysis families are considered. Such techniques are evaluated through the two main protocols for the assessment of pansharpening results, i.e., based on the full- and reduced-resolution validations. Five data sets acquired by different satellites allow for a detailed comparison of the algorithms, characterization of their performances with respect to the different instruments, and consistency of the two validation procedures. In addition, the implementation of all the pansharpening techniques considered in this paper and the framework used for running the simulations, comprising the two validation procedures and the main assessment indexes, are collected in a MATLAB toolbox that is made available to the community.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Laplacian pyramid as a compact image code
Burt, P., & Adelson, E. (1983) · IEEE Transactions on Communications · doi:10.1109/tcom.1983.1095851 · Cited by 6,077
Mean squared error: Love it or leave it? A new look at Signal Fidelity Measures
Wang, Z., & Bovik, A. C. (2009) · IEEE Signal Processing Magazine · doi:10.1109/msp.2008.930649 · Cited by 3,175
Cited by
Multimodal Data Fusion: An Overview of Methods, Challenges, and Prospects
Lahat, D., Adali, T., & Jutten, C. (2015) · Proceedings of the IEEE · doi:10.1109/jproc.2015.2460697 · Cited by 1,296
A multiscale and multidepth convolutional neural network for remote sensing imagery pan-sharpening
Yuan, Q., Wei, Y., Meng, X., Shen, H., & Zhang, L. (2018) · IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1109/jstars.2018.2794888 · Cited by 649
Multispectral and Hyperspectral Image Fusion Using a 3-D-Convolutional Neural Network
Palsson, F., Sveinsson, J. R., & Ulfarsson, M. O. (2017) · IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters · doi:10.1109/lgrs.2017.2668299 · Cited by 364
Metadata
- Authors
- Vivone, G., Alparone, L., Chanussot, J., Dalla Mura, M., Garzelli, A., Licciardi, G. A., Restaino, R., & Wald, L.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing
- Published
- 2015-05
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 2565-2586
- ISSN
- 0196-2892 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-0644
- OpenAlex
- W2171211028
- Cited by
- 1,303
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 92.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.