### GRSS Data Fusion Dataset {#subsec:grsss_state_results}

We also performed several experiments on the GRSS Data Fusion Contest dataset [@liao2015processing] considering all analysis carried out in previous sections. Experimental results, as well as baselines, are presented in Table \[tab:grss\_results\]. The prediction maps obtained for the test set are presented in Figure \[fig:grss\_results\].

Overall, Dilated6 produced the best result among all approaches. In general, networks trained with the proposed method outperformed the baselines. Moreover, the Dilated6 trained with the proposed dynamic technique outperformed the baseline composed of the same network trained using traditional training process, corroborating with previous conclusions.

Among the baseline methods, although all achieved comparable results, the best outcome was yielded by the Deep Contextual [@santanadeep]. This method also leverages from multi-scale information, since it combines features extracted from distinct layers of pre-trained ConvNets. When comparing this method with the best result of the proposed technique (Dilated6), one may see the gap between the models, since the proposed method improves the results for all metrics when compared to the Deep Contextual [@santanadeep] approach. This reaffirms the effectiveness of the proposed dynamic method, corroborating with previous conclusions.

### Vaihingen Dataset {#subsec:vaihingen_state_results}

As introduced in Section \[subsec:baselines\], official results for the Vaihingen dataset are reported only by the challenge organization that held some images that are used for testing the submitted algorithms. Therefore, one must submit the proposed algorithm to have it evaluated. In our case, following previous analysis, we submitted five approaches: the first four are related to each network presented in Section \[sec:methodology\] trained with the 6 classes (which are represented in the official results as UFMG\_1 to 4), and the fifth one, represented in the official results as UFMG\_5, is the Dilated8 network (Figure \[dilated4\]) trained with only 5 classes, i.e., all labels except the clutter/background one. This last submission is due to the lack of training data for that class which corresponds to only 0.67% of the dataset (as stated in Table \[tab:isprs\_stat\]). It is important to note that all submissions
# # # GRSS Data Fusion Dataset { # subsec: grsss_state_results } 

 We also performed several experiments on the GRSS Data Fusion Contest dataset   [ @liao2015processing ] consider all psychoanalysis carried out in previous section. Experimental solution, as well as baselines, are present in Table   \[tab: grss\_results\ ]. The prediction function obtained for the trial set are presented in Figure   \[fig: grss\_results\ ]. 

 Overall, Dilated6 produce the best result among all access. In general, networks trained with the proposed method outperformed the baseline. Moreover, the Dilated6 trained with the proposed active technique outperformed the service line composed of the like network trained using traditional training process, corroborating with former conclusions. 

 Among the baseline methods, although all achieved comparable results, the best result was yielded by the Deep Contextual   [ @santanadeep ]. This method also leverages from multi - scale information, since it combines features extracted from distinct layers of pre - train ConvNets. When comparing this method with the dear resultant role of the proposed technique (Dilated6), one may see the gap between the models, since the proposed method better the results for all metrics when compared to the Deep Contextual   [ @santanadeep ] approach. This reaffirms the effectiveness of the aim dynamic method, corroborating with previous conclusions. 

 # # # Vaihingen Dataset { # subsec: vaihingen_state_results } 

 As introduced in Section   \[subsec: baselines\ ], official consequence for the Vaihingen dataset are reported only by the challenge organization that held some images that are practice for testing the submitted algorithms. Therefore, one must submit the proposed algorithm to have it evaluated. In our character, following former analysis, we submitted five approaches: the first four are related to each net presented in Section   \[sec: methodology\ ] trained with the 6 classes (which are represented in the official resultant role as UFMG\_1 to 4), and the fifth one, represented in the official results as UFMG\_5, is the Dilated8 network (Figure   \[dilated4\ ]) trained with only 5 class, i.e., all labels except the clutter / background one. This last submission is due to the lack of training data for that class which corresponds to merely 0.67% of the dataset (as stated in Table   \[tab: isprs\_stat\ ]). It is important to notice that all submissions
### GRDS Data Fusion Dataset {#smbsec:grsss_state_rgsylts}

We also lerformea several experiments on the GESS Dqta Fusion Contest datxset [@liao2015pgocessing] conwudering all analyslf cadvied mnt in previous xections. Efperimental revuutd, as well as baselines, are presenteq in Tanlf \[tab:grss\_resultf\]. Tht pwedidniin maps obtained for the test set art presented in Figire \[fig:grss\_results\].

Overall, Dllatfd6 produced the bedt result anong qll approachds. In genegcl, networks trained with the proposed methud oucperformed jkw bwvelines. Morxover, nhe Dilated6 tvsined fith thr proposed dynsmir texhnique outperformed vhe baseline composeq of the vaje network trainee ysing tragitiubal trziiinf procfss, corroborafing with peevious conclusions.

Smjbg the baselihe metroqs, although all achieved comparable resllts, the best outcome was yuelded by the Deep Cojtextual [@swntanadeep]. This method also leverages from multi-swale mnwornabion, wijce it combines features extracted from distigdt lsyers of pre-trcined ConvNets. Wnej vjmparing this methob wjth the best resulh of thg propised techgiqur (Dilated6), one may see the gqp between tke nodels, since the pxoposed methud ikprovrs the results for all oetrjcs when colpared to ghe Deep Contextjal [@xattanadeek] approach. This rewffirms tie efyectivendss pf the proposed fynamlw method, corroborahing cith [revious clnclusions.

### Vaihingen Dataset {#suuxec:vaihingen_xtdte_gesults}

As intrpduced in Seceion \[subsec:basekines\], oyficiau results ror the Vaihingen qataset are rakorted only bb the chajlente oeganizagkon that held xome imagvs thar are used for tesbing jhs submitted algiriuhns. Therefore, ome ouse duumit eve proposed dlgofitfk to fave it evaojatec. In our case, followhng lrevious analysis, ee submittgd five a[proaches: the first four are repated to each nejwork presented in Section \[sec:mefhodology\] trwined with tre 6 glasfes (which cre represented in the official results es UFMG\_1 to 4), and the fifrh one, represented nn the officiel restlts as UXMG\_5, is the Dilated8 nwtwork (Figure \[dilaued4\]) trained with only 5 dlassev, i.e., wll labels except the clutter/background one. This last submission is due ti the lack of traihing data fjx that slasd which corresponcs to only 0.67% of the dataset (as svated in Tdbje \[tab:isprs\_stat\]). It is importamt to note that all submissions
### GRSS Data Fusion Dataset {#subsec:grsss_state_results} We several on the Data Fusion Contest carried in previous sections. results, as well baselines, are presented in Table \[tab:grss\_results\]. prediction maps obtained for the test set are presented in Figure \[fig:grss\_results\]. Overall, produced the best result among all approaches. In general, networks trained with the method the Moreover, Dilated6 trained with the proposed dynamic technique outperformed the baseline composed of the same network trained traditional training process, corroborating with previous conclusions. Among baseline methods, although all comparable results, the best outcome yielded the Deep [@santanadeep]. method leverages from multi-scale since it combines features extracted from distinct layers of pre-trained ConvNets. When comparing this method with the result of technique (Dilated6), may the between the models, proposed method improves the results for compared to the Deep Contextual [@santanadeep] approach. This the effectiveness the proposed dynamic method, corroborating with conclusions. ### Vaihingen Dataset {#subsec:vaihingen_state_results} As introduced in \[subsec:baselines\], official results for the Vaihingen dataset are reported only by the challenge organization that images that are used testing the submitted Therefore, must the algorithm to it evaluated. In our case, following previous analysis, we submitted five the first four are related to each network presented in trained the 6 classes are represented in the results UFMG\_1 to 4), and one, in as is Dilated8 network (Figure \[dilated4\]) with only 5 classes, i.e., labels except the clutter/background due to the lack of training data for class which corresponds to only 0.67% of dataset (as stated in Table \[tab:isprs\_stat\]). It is important to note that submissions
### GRSS Data Fusion Dataset {#subsEc:grsss_staTe_resUltS}

We AlSo peRforMed several expeRImenTs on the GRSS Data Fusion COntesT dATaseT [@LiAo2015proCessing] COnSIDerInG aLl aNaLYsIs carRieD out in pRevious secTioNs. experimental REsUlts, as well As bAselines, are pResEnted iN TAblE \[Tab:grSs\_rEsultS\]. The prEDictioN maps obtaInED for thE Test set ARE pReseNted in Figure \[fig:grSS\_rESults\].

Overall, DiLated6 pRoDUcED The BesT result amoNg All apPRoaches. iN gENERal, NEtworks traineD with the proPOseD methoD oUtpERformeD the bAsELinEs. Moreover, tHe DiLated6 traiNed witH The propOSed dynaMic tecHniQue OutpERfOrMed ThE BasELiNe cOMpoSed of the SaMe NetwoRk trAINED usiNg tRadiTionaL training procEss, CorrOBorAting With pReviOuS concLusionS.

AmonG tHe baseline methoDs, alThough all AchIeVed CoMparaBLe resuLts, The Best outCome was YIelDeD BY ThE Deep Contextual [@sanTaNADeEp]. This meThod alSO lEvERages froM mUltI-scaLE InforMatiON, sInce it coMbines FEaTuRes extrAcTed froM dIstIncT layeRS of pRe-traiNed ConvNEts. WhEN comparing this MEthod with the bESt RESuLT of tHe pRoposed techNiquE (dilaTed6), oNE mAy sEE the gAp betWeEN tHE models, since the propOsEd methOd impRoves the resulTs for all meTRICs when coMparED tO The Deep ContextUal [@saNtanadeep] aPProach. ThIs reaFfirms thE effectivENEss of the ProPosEd dYnaMIC mEthod, corroborATIng wItH previoUs cOnclusiOns.

### vaiHinGen daTaset {#subsEc:vaihinGeN_sTaTe_ResUlts}

AS IntroducEd In SEcTioN \[subsEC:baselInes\], oFficIaL rESulTs for thE vaIHIngeN dAtAset Are RePorteD onlY By tHe challEnge organIzaTIon tHaT hEld some Images that are UsEd for testiNg The SubmitTED algoritHms. Therefore, one must submIT the proPosEd algOritHm to have iT evAluateD. In OUr case, FollowIng prEvIouS ANalysIS, We SubMiTted five apPROacHes: thE fIrst Four are Related to each netwoRK prEsented in SectIon \[Sec:mETHoDolOGy\] TRaiNeD WitH THe 6 classes (which aRe represenTeD In The officiaL ResUlTs as UFMg\_1 to 4), and tHe fifTH one, repResented iN the officIaL resULTs aS UFMG\_5, is the dilated8 nEtwork (FigURe \[dilATeD4\]) traiNed With onLy 5 ClaSses, i.E., all laBEls ExcepT the clUtTer/bacKgrouNd One. This lAst submission is due to the Lack of TrainIng Data for thAt cLAss Which corrEspoNds to only 0.67% oF thE daTaset (As sTAted iN TabLE \[tAb:iSPrs\_stAt\]). It IS importanT To NotE THaT all submissIONS
### GRSS Data Fusion Datas et {#subse c:grs ss_ sta te _res ults }

We also per f orme d several experimentson th eG RSSD at a Fus ion Con t es t dat as et  [@ li a o2 015pr oce ssing]considerin g a ll  analysis ca r ri ed out inpre vious sectio ns.  Exper im ent a l res ult s, as  wella s base lines, ar ep resent e d in Ta b l e\[ta b:grss\_results\] .  T h e prediction m aps ob ta i ne d for  th e test set  a re pr e sentedi nF i g ure \[fig:grss\_r esults\].
O ver all, D il ate d 6 prod ucedth e  be st result a mong  all appr oaches .  In gen e ral, ne tworks  tr ain ed w i th  t hepr o pos e dmet h odoutperfo rm ed  thebase l i n e s. M ore over , the  Dilated6 tra ine d wi t h t he pr opose d dy na mic t echniq ue ou tp erformed the ba seli ne compos edof  th esamen etwork  tr ain ed usin g tradi t ion al t r ai ning process, corr ob o r at ing with  previ o us  c o nclusion s. 

A mong t he ba seli n emethods,  altho u gh  a ll achi ev ed com pa rab leresul t s, t he bes t outcom e was yielded by the Deep Contextu a l[ @ sa n tana dee p]. This me thod also  lev e ra ges frommulti -s c al e  information, since  i t comb inesfeatures extr acted from d i stinct l ayer s  o f  pre-trained C onvNe ts. When c o mparingthismethod w ith the b e s t result  of  th e p rop o s ed  technique (D i l ated 6) , one m aysee the  ga p b etw een  t he models , sinceth epr op ose d met h od impro ve s t he  re sults for al l met rics  w he n  co mparedt ot h e De ep  C onte xtu al  [@sa ntan a dee p] appr oach. Thi s r e affi rm sthe eff ectiveness of  t he propose ddyn amic m e t hod, cor roborating with previou s  conclu sio ns.
###Vaihingen  Da taset{#s u bsec:v aihing en_st at e_r e s ults} As  in tr oduced inS e cti on \[ su bsec :baseli nes\], official re s ult s for the Vai hin gend a ta set ar e  re po r ted o nly by the chal lenge orga ni z at ion that h e ldso me imag es that  areu sed for  testingthe submi tt ed a l g ori thms. Ther efore, o ne must s u bmitt he  prop ose d algo ri thm  to h ave it eva luate d. Inou r case , fol lo wing pre vious analysis, we subm ittedfiveapp roaches:the fir st four a re r elated toeac h n etwor k p r esent ed i n  S ect i on \[ sec: m ethodolog y \]  tr a i ne d with the6 c las ses ( whi c h arerepr esented in the of f icial resultsas U F M G\_ 1 t o  4),  a nd the fifth o ne,  r e p resented  i n the offic ial resu lt s  as U FMG\_5 , is t he Dila t e d8 networ k (F igu re \[dila ted 4\ ] ) train ed  w i th onl y 5cl asses,  i.e., alll a bels except theclutt e r /back g rou nd on e.  This l a st s ubmissionis due to t he lac k of  trai ning da ta  for t hat  c lass which correspon ds to  only 0 .6 7% o f t he dat aset ( as st ated  i n T able \[ta b : is p rs \_ s tat \]).  It i simpo rtant ton ote that  al l  submis si ons 
### GRSS_Data Fusion_Dataset {#subsec:grsss_state_results}

We also performed_several experiments_on_the GRSS_Data_Fusion Contest dataset [@liao2015processing]_considering all analysis_carried out in previous_sections. Experimental results,_as_well as baselines, are presented in Table \[tab:grss\_results\]. The prediction maps obtained for the test_set_are presented_in_Figure \[fig:grss\_results\].

Overall,_Dilated6 produced the best result_among all approaches. In general,_networks trained_with the proposed method outperformed the baselines. Moreover,_the_Dilated6 trained with_the proposed dynamic technique outperformed the baseline composed of_the same network trained using traditional_training process, corroborating_with_previous_conclusions.

Among the baseline methods,_although all achieved comparable results, the_best outcome was yielded by the_Deep Contextual [@santanadeep]. This method also leverages from_multi-scale information, since it combines features_extracted from distinct layers of_pre-trained ConvNets._When comparing this method with_the best result_of the_proposed technique (Dilated6),_one may see the gap between_the models, since_the proposed method improves the results_for_all metrics when_compared_to_the Deep_Contextual [@santanadeep] approach. This_reaffirms_the effectiveness_of_the proposed dynamic method, corroborating with_previous_conclusions.

### Vaihingen Dataset {#subsec:vaihingen_state_results}

As introduced in Section \[subsec:baselines\],_official results for the_Vaihingen_dataset are reported only_by the challenge organization that_held some images that are used_for testing_the submitted_algorithms. Therefore, one must submit the proposed algorithm to have it_evaluated. In our case, following previous_analysis, we submitted five_approaches: the_first_four are related_to_each network_presented in Section \[sec:methodology\] trained with the 6_classes (which_are represented in the official results_as UFMG\_1 to 4),_and_the fifth one, represented in the_official results as UFMG\_5, is the_Dilated8 network (Figure \[dilated4\]) trained with_only_5_classes, i.e., all labels except_the clutter/background one. This last submission_is due to_the lack of training data for that_class_which corresponds to only 0.67% of_the_dataset (as stated in Table \[tab:isprs\_stat\]). It_is_important_to note that all submissions