Table 1 Comparison with the state-of-the-art results reported on University-1652, where the bold indicate the best results.
From: Enhancing cross view geo localization through global local quadrant interaction network
Method | University-1652 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Drone \(\rightarrow\) Satellite | Satellite \(\rightarrow\) Drone | |||
R@1 | AP | R@1 | AP | |
U-baseline 13 | 58.49 | 63.31 | 71.18 | 58.74 |
DWDRÂ 55 | 69.77 | 73.73 | 81.46 | 70.45 |
MuSe-Net 56 | 74.48 | 77.83 | 88.02 | 75.10 |
LPNÂ 21 | 75.93 | 79.14 | 86.45 | 74.49 |
SAIGÂ 57 | 78.85 | 81.62 | 86.45 | 78.48 |
LDRVSDÂ 58 | 78.66 | 81.55 | 89.30 | 79.17 |
PCLÂ 59 | 79.47 | 83.63 | 87.69 | 78.51 |
FSRA Â 18 | 82.25 | 84.82 | 87.87 | 81.53 |
SGMÂ 26 | 82.14 | 84.72 | 88.16 | 81.80 |
PAANÂ 60 | 84.51 | 86.78 | 91.01 | 82.28 |
MSBAÂ 44 | 86.61 | 88.55 | 92.15 | 84.45 |
MBFÂ 61 | 89.05 | 90.61 | 93.15 | 88.17 |
MCCGÂ 62 | 89.64 | 91.32 | 94.30 | 89.39 |
Ours | 91.66 | 92.94 | 94.58 | 91.11 |
