跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2607.28571 · v2

Finding Change in Satellite Archives from Text: How to Combine Before-and-After Images Efficiently

首次提交 2026-07-31 01:35
版本更新 2026-10-26 16:48
雷达观测 2026-10-29 00:36
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Operational Earth observation increasingly calls for answering queries such as ``find the image pairs where a new building appeared.'' This means searching an archive of before-and-after (bi-temporal) satellite image pairs and ranking each pair by how well it matches a natural-language description of the change. The component that performs this match, the fusion module that combines the ``before'' and ``after'' views, must be run at query time across many candidate pairs, so its speed largely sets the cost of every search. We present a controlled comparison of how to build that module. Using one fixed image encoder (a frozen CLIP model) and one training recipe for all variants, we evaluate eight designs drawn from three families: attention, state-space models (Mamba), and learned compression (our Temporal Bottleneck Fusion, TBF). Each design is tested on two benchmarks (LEVIR-CC and Dubai-CC) with ten random seeds, so the reported differences are statistically grounded. We outline three findings: first, a training-free two-stage search (a cheap difference model that shortlists candidates, followed by attention fusion that re-ranks them) matches or exceeds full-fusion recall on LEVIR-CC while cutting query cost $10$-$15\times$, with comparable R@1/R@5 on Dubai-CC; second, the linear-time scan of Mamba, attractive on paper, gives no speed benefit at the patch counts typical of vision transformers ($L{=}196$): the scan is limited by memory bandwidth, whereas attention maps cleanly onto parallel hardware; and third, compressing the fused representation (TBF) reduces parameters by $2.3\times$ and latency by $1.6\times$ for a change-only BLEU-1 cost of $0.007$, although more aggressive compression quietly discards change-relevant detail that aggregate metrics fail to reveal.

作者备注:10 pages, 3 figures. Accepted at the MACLEAN Workshop (ECML PKDD 2026

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v2 · 2026-10-26 16:48 · 最新观测版本

Finding Change in Satellite Archives from Text: How to Combine Before-and-After Images Efficiently

Operational Earth observation increasingly calls for answering queries such as ``find the image pairs where a new building appeared.'' This means searching an archive of before-and-after (bi-temporal) satellite image pairs and ranking each pair by how well it matches a natural-language description of the change. The component that performs this match, the fusion module that combines the ``before'' and ``after'' views, must be run at query time across many candidate pairs, so its speed largely sets the cost of every search. We present a controlled comparison of how to build that module. Using one fixed image encoder (a frozen CLIP model) and one training recipe for all variants, we evaluate eight designs drawn from three families: attention, state-space models (Mamba), and learned compression (our Temporal Bottleneck Fusion, TBF). Each design is tested on two benchmarks (LEVIR-CC and Dubai-CC) with ten random seeds, so the reported differences are statistically grounded. We outline three findings: first, a training-free two-stage search (a cheap difference model that shortlists candidates, followed by attention fusion that re-ranks them) matches or exceeds full-fusion recall on LEVIR-CC while cutting query cost $10$-$15\times$, with comparable R@1/R@5 on Dubai-CC; second, the linear-time scan of Mamba, attractive on paper, gives no speed benefit at the patch counts typical of vision transformers ($L{=}196$): the scan is limited by memory bandwidth, whereas attention maps cleanly onto parallel hardware; and third, compressing the fused representation (TBF) reduces parameters by $2.3\times$ and latency by $1.6\times$ for a change-only BLEU-1 cost of $0.007$, although more aggressive compression quietly discards change-relevant detail that aggregate metrics fail to reveal.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗