Novel CALCNet architecture demonstrates strong land cover classification performance and efficiency for remote sensing applications.
Land cover classification (LCC) is a fundamental task in remote sensing, which enables effective environmental monitoring, agricultural planning, and disaster management. The existing approaches often rely on fine-tuning pre-trained models, which are not specifically designed for LCC, which lead to suboptimal performance in complex scenarios. To address these limitations, we propose the Cross-Module Attention Land Cover Network (CALCNet), a novel architecture developed from scratch. CALCNet follows a contracting and restoration backbone, where the contracting path extracts progressively abstract semantic features while reducing spatial resolution, and the restoration path recovers fine-grained spatial details through upsampling and skip connections. In addition, CALCNet integrates a cross-module attention mechanism that combines spatial attention and multi-scale feature selection to enhance feature representation. Furthermore, we applied a differential evolution-based neuron pruning strategy to create a compressed CALCNet variant, which retains high classification performance while reducing computational cost. The CALCNet is evaluated on four benchmark LCC datasets, AID, UCMerced_LandUse, NWPU_RESISC45, and EuroSAT, demonstrating strong performance across all benchmarks. Specifically, the model achieves classification accuracies of 98.09%, 99.47%, 99.19%, and 99.19%, respectively. The compressed CALCNet variant reduces computational cost to 78.55 million floating point operations (FLOPs) with a model size of 43 MB, while achieving improved inference speeds (38.32 frames/sec on CPU and 118.3 frames/sec on GPU), representing approximately 45–50% reduction in FLOPs and model storage. These results highlight that CALCNet is both highly accurate and computationally efficient, making it well suited for real-world LCC applications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fayaz et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: