skip to main content
10.1145/3615886.3627748acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgisConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Automated Multi-class Crater Segmentation in Mars Orbital Images

Published:20 November 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Crater mapping and counting are critical analyses in many planetary science investigations, as the size-frequency distribution of impact craters can be used to measure the age of a planet's surface and interpret its geologic history. Crater counting is extremely tedious --- counting hundreds to thousands of small features in a small region could take days to months for a trained planetary scientist. Previous work has demonstrated the feasibility of using computer vision techniques to automatically map and count craters in Mars orbital images using semantic segmentation. We present an improved approach for binary and multi-class semantic segmentation of craters in THEMIS daytime thermal infrared images using U2-Net and U-NetFormer with template matching. Our approach is the first method to perform multi-class segmentation of craters using computer vision. Our binary segmentation approach outperforms previous approaches that used semantic segmentation and template matching. A new global high-resolution image mosaic dataset of Mars (CTX, 5 m/px) is now available, but to date, no studies have benchmarked automated crater counting methods for this improved dataset. Toward this goal, we applied the THEMIS-trained model to out-of-domain CTX datasets and evaluated results quantitatively using the DoMars16 benchmark dataset and qualitatively using global mosaic tiles. We show that the THEMIS-trained models effectively segment craters in CTX images without additional fine-tuning. The code can be found here.

References

  1. Nadine G Barlow. 1990. Constraints on early events in Martian history as derived from the cratering record. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 95, B9 (1990), 14191--14201.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. JF Bell III, MC Malin, MA Caplinger, J Fahle, MJ Wolff, BA Cantor, PB James, T Ghaemi, LV Posiolova, MA Ravine, et al. 2013. Calibration and performance of the Mars reconnaissance orbiter context camera (CTX). International Journal of Mars Science and Exploration 8 (2013), 1--14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. GK Benedix, Anthony Lagain, Kevin Chai, S Meka, S Anderson, C Norman, PA Bland, Jonathan Paxman, MC Towner, and Tele Tan. 2020. Deriving surface ages on Mars using automated crater counting. Earth and Space Science 7, 3 (2020), e2019EA001005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. G. Bradski. 2000. The OpenCV Library. Dr. Dobb's Journal of Software Tools (2000).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. California Institute of Technology - Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences. [n. d.]. The Bruce Murray Laboratory for Planetary Visualization. http://murray-lab.caltech.edu/CTX/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark R Chapman and Kenneth L Jones. 1977. Cratering and obliteration history of Mars. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 5, 1 (1977), 515--538.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Dong Chen, Fan Hu, P Takis Mathiopoulos, Zhenxin Zhang, and Jiju Peethambaran. 2023. MC-UNet: Martian Crater Segmentation at Semantic and Instance Levels Using U-Net-Based Convolutional Neural Network. Remote Sensing 15, 1 (2023), 266.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Philip R Christensen, Bruce M Jakosky, Hugh H Kieffer, Michael C Malin, Harry Y McSween, Kenneth Nealson, Greg L Mehall, Steven H Silverman, Steven Ferry, Michael Caplinger, et al. 2004. The thermal emission imaging system (THEMIS) for the Mars 2001 Odyssey Mission. Space Science Reviews 110 (2004), 85--130.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Danielle DeLatte, Sarah T. Crites, Nicholas Guttenberg, Elizabeth J. Tasker, and Takehisa Yairi. 2019. Segmentation Convolutional Neural Networks for Automatic Crater Detection on Mars. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing 12 (2019), 2944--2957.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Kaichang Di, Wei Li, Zongyu Yue, Yiwei Sun, and Yiliang Liu. 2014. A machine learning approach to crater detection from topographic data. Advances in Space Research 54, 11 (2014), 2419--2429.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. JL Dickson, LA Kerber, CI Fassett, and BL Ehlmann. 2018. A global, blended CTX mosaic of Mars with vectorized seam mapping: A new mosaicking pipeline using principles of non-destructive image editing. In Lunar and planetary science conference, Vol. 49. Lunar and Planetary Institute The Woodlands TX, USA, 1--2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. CS Edwards, KJ Nowicki, PR Christensen, J Hill, N Gorelick, and K Murray. 2011. Mosaicking of global planetary image datasets: 1. Techniques and data processing for Thermal Emission Imaging System (THEMIS) multi-spectral data. Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets 116, E10 (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. William K Hartmann and Gerhard Neukum. 2001. Cratering chronology and the evolution of Mars. In Chronology and evolution of Mars: Proceedings of an ISSI Workshop, 10-14 April 2000, Bern, Switzerland. Springer, 165--194.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Zhonghua Hong, Ziyang Fan, Ruyan Zhou, Haiyan Pan, Yun Zhang, Yanling Han, Jing Wang, Shuhu Yang, and Yanmin Jin. 2022. Pyramidal Image Segmentation Based on U-Net for Automatic Multiscale Crater Extraction. Sensors and Materials 34, 1 (2022), 237--250.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Pavel Iakubovskii. 2019. Segmentation Models Pytorch. https://github.com/qubvel/segmentation_models.pytorch.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Boris A Ivanov. 2001. Mars/Moon cratering rate ratio estimates. Space Science Reviews 96, 1-4 (2001), 87--104.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Yutong Jia, Lei Liu, and Chenyang Zhang. 2021. Moon impact crater detection using nested attention mechanism based UNet++. IEEE Access 9 (2021), 44107--44116.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Anthony Lagain, Sylvain Bouley, David Baratoux, Chiara Marmo, François Costard, O Delaa, A Pio Rossi, M Minin, GK Benedix, M Ciocco, et al. 2021. Mars Crater Database: A participative project for the classification of the morphological characteristics of large Martian craters. (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Anthony Lagain, Konstantinos Servis, GK Benedix, Christopher Norman, Seamus Anderson, and PA Bland. 2021. Model age derivation of large martian impact craters, using automatic crater counting methods. Earth and Space Science 8, 2 (2021), e2020EA001598.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Christopher Lee. 2019. Automated crater detection on Mars using deep learning. Planetary and Space Science (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Michael C Malin, James F Bell III, Bruce A Cantor, Michael A Caplinger, Wendy M Calvin, R Todd Clancy, Kenneth S Edgett, Lawrence Edwards, Robert M Haberle, Philip B James, et al. 2007. Context camera investigation on board the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets 112, E5 (2007).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Xuebin Qin, Zichen Zhang, Chenyang Huang, Masood Dehghan, Osmar R Zaiane, and Martin Jagersand. 2020. U2-Net: Going deeper with nested U-structure for salient object detection. Pattern recognition 106 (2020), 107404.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Stuart J Robbins and Brian M Hynek. 2012. A new global database of Mars impact craters ≥ 1 km: 1. Database creation, properties, and parameters. Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets 117, E5 (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Ari Silburt, Mohamad Ali-Dib, Chenchong Zhu, Alan P. Jackson, Diana Valencia, Yevgeni Kissin, Daniel Tamayo, and Kristen Menou. 2018. Lunar crater identification via deep learning. Icarus (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. David E Smith, Maria T Zuber, Herbert V Frey, James B Garvin, James W Head, Duane O Muhleman, Gordon H Pettengill, Roger J Phillips, Sean C Solomon, H Jay Zwally, et al. 2001. Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter: Experiment summary after the first year of global mapping of Mars. Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets 106, E10 (2001), 23689--23722.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. TF Stepinski, Wei Ding, and R Vilalta. 2012. Detecting impact craters in planetary images using machine learning. In Intelligent data analysis for real-life applications: Theory and practice. IGI Global, 146--159.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Robert G Strom, Steven K Croft, and Nadine G Barlow. 1992. The Martian impact cratering record. Mars (1992), 383--423.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. THEMIS Science Team. 2006. THEMIS Day IR Global Mosaic. https://www.mars.asu.edu/data/thm_dir/ (2006).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. THEMIS Science Team. 2014. THEMIS Day IR Global Mosaic. https://www.mars.asu.edu/data/thm_dir/ (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. T. A. Vinogradova, M. Burl, and Eric Mjolsness. 2002. Training of a crater detection algorithm for Mars crater imagery. Proceedings, IEEE Aerospace Conference 7 (2002), 7--7.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Libo Wang, Rui Li, Ce Zhang, Shenghui Fang, Chenxi Duan, Xiaoliang Meng, and Peter M Atkinson. 2022. UNetFormer: A UNet-like transformer for efficient semantic segmentation of remote sensing urban scene imagery. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 190 (2022), 196--214.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. SC Werner and KL Tanaka. 2011. Redefinition of the crater-density and absolute-age boundaries for the chronostratigraphic system of Mars. Icarus 215, 2 (2011), 603--607.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Philipp Georg Wetzler, Rie Honda, Brian L. Enke, William J. Merline, Clark R. Chapman, and Michael C. Burl. 2005. Learning to Detect Small Impact Craters. 2005 Seventh IEEE Workshops on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV/MOTION'05) - Volume 1 1 (2005), 178--184.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Thorsten Wilhelm, Melina Geis, Jens Püttschneider, Timo Sievernich, Tobias Weber, Kay Wohlfarth, and Christian Wöhler. 2020. Domars16k: A diverse dataset for weakly supervised geomorphologic analysis on mars. Remote Sensing 12, 23 (2020), 3981.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Sudong Zang, Lingli Mu, Lina Xian, and Wei Zhang. 2021. Semi-supervised deep learning for lunar crater detection using ce-2 dom. Remote Sensing 13, 14 (2021), 2819.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Automated Multi-class Crater Segmentation in Mars Orbital Images

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        GeoAI '23: Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGSPATIAL International Workshop on AI for Geographic Knowledge Discovery
        November 2023
        135 pages
        ISBN:9798400703485
        DOI:10.1145/3615886

        Copyright © 2023 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 20 November 2023

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate17of25submissions,68%
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)110
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)9

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader