Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

The overall architecture of BGSC-Net.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

The overall architecture of EfficientNet-B3.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

The detailed architecture of the GLTB.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

The detailed architecture of the proposed CLSCM.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

The detailed architecture of the proposed ABSM.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Table 1.

Segmentation results of different models on the Potsdam dataset. The values in bold represent the top-performing metrics in the table.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 6.

Visualization results of comparative experiments on the Potsdam dataset.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Table 2.

Boundary accuracy comparison of different models on the Potsdam dataset. The values in bold represent the top-performing metrics in the table.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Segmentation results of different models on the Vaihingen dataset. The values in bold represent the top-performing metrics in the table.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Fig 7.

Visualization results of comparative experiments on the Vaihingen dataset.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Table 4.

Boundary accuracy comparison of different models on the Vaihingen dataset. The values in bold represent the top-performing metrics in the table.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Segmentation results of different models on the LoveDA dataset. The values in bold represent the top-performing metrics in the table.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Fig 8.

Visualization results of comparative experiments on the LoveDA dataset.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Table 6.

Segmentation results of different models on the UAVid dataset. The values in bold represent the top-performing metrics in the table.

More »

Table 6 Expand

Fig 9.

Visualization results of comparative experiments on the UAVid dataset.

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Table 7.

Segmentation results of different models on the MSFSD. The values in bold represent the top-performing metrics in the table.

More »

Table 7 Expand

Fig 10.

Visualization results of comparative experiments on the MSFSD.

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Table 8.

Ablation experiments on the Potsdam dataset.

More »

Table 8 Expand

Table 9.

Ablation experiments on the Vaihingen dataset.

More »

Table 9 Expand

Table 10.

Ablation experiments on the LoveDA dataset.

More »

Table 10 Expand

Table 11.

Ablation experiments on the UAVid dataset.

More »

Table 11 Expand

Table 12.

Ablation experiments on the MSFSD.

More »

Table 12 Expand

Table 13.

Ablation study on multi-stage bridging strategies in ABSM.

More »

Table 13 Expand

Table 14.

Ablation study on the key components of ABSM.

More »

Table 14 Expand

Fig 11.

Visualization results of ablation experiments on the Potsdam dataset.

More »

Fig 11 Expand

Fig 12.

Visualization results of ablation experiments on the Vaihingen dataset.

More »

Fig 12 Expand

Fig 13.

Visualization results of ablation experiments on the LoveDA dataset.

More »

Fig 13 Expand

Fig 14.

Visualization results of ablation experiments on the UAVid dataset.

More »

Fig 14 Expand

Fig 15.

Visualization results of ablation experiments on the MSFSD.

More »

Fig 15 Expand

Table 15.

Computational complexity analysis on a single NVIDIA GeForce RTX4090 GPU. The values in bold represent the top-performing metrics in the table.

More »

Table 15 Expand