CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 344Remote-Sensing Image ClassificationGeographic Information Systems StudiesSoil Geostatistics and Mapping

The DOI matches its DataCite record; none of the 34 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

AlphaEarth Foundations: An embedding field model for accurate and efficient global mapping from sparse label data

Open access
Brown, Christopher F., Kazmierski, Michal R., Pasquarella, Valerie J., Rucklidge, William J., Samsikova, Masha, Zhang, Chenhui, Shelhamer, Evan, Lahera, Estefania, Wiles, Olivia, Ilyushchenko, Simon, Gorelick, Noel, Zhang, Lihui Lydia, Alj, Sophia, Schechter, Emily, Askay, Sean, Guinan, Oliver, Moore, Rebecca, Boukouvalas, Alexis, Kohli, Pushmeet·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2507.22291arXiv 2507.22291
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Unprecedented volumes of Earth observation data are continually collected around the world, but high-quality labels remain scarce given the effort required to make physical measurements and observations. This has led to considerable investment in bespoke modeling efforts translating sparse labels into maps. Here we introduce AlphaEarth Foundations, an embedding field model yielding a highly general, geospatial representation that assimilates spatial, temporal, and measurement contexts across multiple sources, enabling accurate and efficient production of maps and monitoring systems from local to global scales. The embeddings generated by AlphaEarth Foundations are the only to consistently outperform a suite of other well-known/widely accepted featurization approaches tested on a diverse set of mapping evaluations without re-training. We have released a dataset of global, annual, analysis-ready embedding field layers from 2017 through 2024.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

AlphaEarth Foundations (AEF) is a geospatial embedding field model that assimilates multi-source Earth observation data into a 64-byte, 10-meter representation and consistently outperforms designed and learned featurization baselines across sparse-label mapping evaluations. The authors release global annual embedding field layers from 2017 through 2024 and an evaluation suite.

Key findings

  • AEF reduced error magnitudes by ∼23.9% on average versus the next-best approach/method of transfer in the max-trial setting, ∼10.4% in ten-shot trials, and ∼4.18% in one-shot trials across 15 evaluations sourced from 11 openly available datasets.
  • AEF maintains 10-meter spatial resolution and requires 16x less information per representation (64 bytes) compared to the next-most compact learned method.
  • For biophysical variables, AEF had the highest emissivity R² (0.72 ± 0.00) versus MOSAIKS (0.69 ± 0.00), and was the only method with R² > 0.2 for evapotranspiration, achieving R² = 0.58 ± 0.01.
  • In change detection with direct supervision, AEF achieved 78.4% ± 1.11 balanced accuracy (linear) for land cover and 79.3% ± 1.67 BA (kNN, k=3) for land use, versus next-best 72.0% ± 1.28 BA (MOSAIKS, kNN, k=3) and 71.5% ± 2.33 BA (composite, kNN, k=3), respectively.

Methods

  • AEF was trained on over 3 billion observations across nine gridded data sources and one unstructured text source, representing approximately 1.1% of Earth’s land surface; training used 8,412,511 video sequences, 3,047,520,515 frames, and 5,145,244 sites, for 56 hours on 512 TPU v4 devices over 100k steps in batches of 256 video sequences.
  • The model uses a Space Time Precision (STP) encoder with simultaneous space, time, and precision operators, implicit decoders conditioned on time and sensor metadata, a von Mises-Fisher bottleneck in S⁶³, batch uniformity, teacher-student consistency, and text-contrastive learning with a frozen language model.
  • Evaluation used 15 datasets derived from 11 openly available sources, with low-shot trials of n = 1, 10, and max samples per class, k-nearest neighbors and linear transfer methods, and comparisons against CCDC, MOSAIKS, composites, SatCLIP, Prithvi, Clay, and XY/XYZ/ViT controls.

Limitations

  • The paper states that extreme low-shot performance remains unsolved: for 10-shot trials, AEF error reductions were > 1.0x in the ∼90% confidence interval for only 8/15 evaluations (average variation ±0.38x), and for 1-shot trials only 5/15 evaluations (average variation ±0.49x).
  • The paper states that tile artifacts are still visible in embedding field layers due to irregular inputs and could be removed in future work with a more aggressive consistency objective; it also notes that US trees required ∼100x more observations than SatCLIP, speculated to relate to AEF receiving no coordinate information.
  • The paper states that training locations inherit sampling biases from GBIF and Wikipedia, tending to cluster in denser human populations/urbanized areas; the text also makes evident that several evaluations are proxy tasks based on model-generated products (e.g., OpenET ensemble, ASTER GED) and that results reflect AEF v2.0, with v2.1 fixes described separately.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2507.22291

Cites

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 34 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 79 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 64
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 63
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2
107 of 107

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Designed Earth observation features are often noisy, sensor-dependent, and highly region- and application-specific.

    “However, designed features are often noisy, sensor-dependent, and highly region-and application-specific, compounding the challenges inherent to working with satellite imagery and other planetary-scale datasets.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    High-quality maps depend on high-quality labeled data.

    “High-quality maps depend on high-quality labeled data, yet when working at global scales, a balance must be struck between measurement precision and spatial coverage.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    When working at global scales, a balance must be struck between measurement precision and spatial coverage.

    “High-quality maps depend on high-quality labeled data, yet when working at global scales, a balance must be struck between measurement precision and spatial coverage.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The GLO-30 DEM is valid over the entire period of the training set.

    “The GLO-30 DEM is assumed to be valid over the entire period of our training set, though we note with natural and man-made phenomena this is not universally true.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Geocoded text can provide additional context that will help enrich the learned representations.

    “we assume that geocoded text can provide additional context that will help enrich our learned representations.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Batch element pairs u_i and u'_i are effectively uniform random sample pairs from the training set.

    “Assuming a uniform sample from the training set, batch element pairs 𝑢 𝑖 and 𝑢 ′ 𝑖 are effectively uniform random sample pairs from the training set”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    SAR instruments are water vapor (cloud) penetrating and offer consistent ground measurements in the tropics or other persistently cloud areas.

    “Notably SAR instruments are water vapor (cloud) penetrating, and offer consistent ground measurements in the tropics or other persistently cloud areas.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Earth observation data is irregular in space and time, with acquisition campaigns not always global, having acquisition periods unique from other instruments, varying as a function of solar angle, coming on and offline for a number of reasons, and atmospheric conditions at the time an observation is made being unpredictable at local scales.

    “Earth observation data is irregular in space and time.Acquisition campaigns are not always global, have acquisition periods unique from other instruments, vary as a function of solar angle, come on and offline for a number of reasons, and atmospheric conditions at the time an observation is made are unpredictable at local scales.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Land cover represents an instantaneous observation of state.

    “We assume land cover represents an instantaneous observation of state”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Land use represents an integrated observation of state (e.g., 'forestry' may include periods of tree cover, clearing, and regrowth).

    “We assume land use represents an integrated observation of state (e.g., “forestry” may include periods of tree cover, clearing, and regrowth)”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Non-plantation to plantation transitions are more likely than the reverse.

    “We assume that non-plantation to plantation transitions are more likely than the reverse”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The Canada crops datasets are a good proxy for performance on multi-level crop classification at a national scale.

    “We assume that these datasets are a good proxy for performance on multi-level crop classification at a national scale”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Surface properties are relatively stable at 100-meter resolution.

    “We assume surface properties are relatively stable at 100-meter resolution (though acknowledge this introduces added uncertainty in signal).”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The manifold hypothesis holds.

    “assuming the manifold hypothesis (Fefferman et al., 2016).”
14 of 14

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Evaluation suite is described as using both 11 and ten source datasets

    Minor

    The main text says the 15 evaluations came from 11 datasets, while the supplementary material says they came from ten.

  • Training-observation ablation cites the source-group figure

    Minor

    Section S7.1 cites Figure S21 for scaling training observations, but the captions identify S20 as the observation-scaling figure and S21 as the additional-source-groups figure.

  • Ethiopia crops test count does not match its class counts

    Minor

    The four test counts in Table S14 sum to 1,956, not the stated 1,657. The table and prose give the same overall total but different train-test splits.

    Reported 1657 · recomputed 1956

  • CCDC feature dimension differs between descriptions

    Minor

    The CCDC methods section states a 56-dimensional feature vector, whereas the baseline summary lists 54 dimensions.

  • Africa crop mask is listed as four-class rather than binary

    Minor

    Table 1 lists four classes, but the dataset description calls the labels binary and Table S11 lists only not_crop and crop.

  • Table 1 reverses the LUCAS land-cover and land-use class counts

    Minor

    Table 1 assigns 15 classes to LUCAS land cover and 40 to land use; the dataset descriptions assign 40 to land cover and 15 to land use.

  • Ethiopia crops training count does not match its class counts

    Minor

    The four training counts in Table S14 sum to 574, not the stated 873.

    Reported 873 · recomputed 574

7 of 7

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Research works printed but not linked: 61

  1. T. Cai, J. Fan, and T. Jiang. Distributions of angles in random packing on spheres. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 14(1):1837-1864, 2013.
  2. X. Chen, S. Xie, and K. He. An empirical study of training self-supervised vision transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 9640- 9649, 2021.
  3. W. B. Cohen and S. N. Goward. Landsat's role in ecological applications of remote sensing. Bioscience, 54(6):535-545, 2004.
  4. Y. Cong, S. Khanna, C. Meng, P. Liu, E. Rozi, Y. He, M. Burke, D. Lobell, and S. Ermon. Satmae: Pre- training transformers for temporal and multi- spectral satellite imagery. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:197-211, 2022.
  5. J. Deng, W. Dong, R. Socher, L.-J. Li, K. Li, and L. Fei-Fei. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 248-255. Ieee, 2009.
  6. E. Dinerstein, D. Olson, A. Joshi, C. Vynne, N. D. Burgess, E. Wikramanayake, N. Hahn, S. Palminteri, P. Hedao, R. Noss, et al. An ecoregion-based approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm. BioScience, 67(6):534- 545, 2017.
  7. A. Dosovitskiy, L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, D. Weis- senborn, X. Zhai, T. Unterthiner, M. Dehghani, M. Minderer, G. Heigold, S. Gelly, et al. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929, 2020. · arXiv
  8. R. Dubayah, J. Armston, S. P. Healey, J. M. Bru- ening, P. L. Patterson, J. R. Kellner, L. Duncan- son, S. Saarela, G. Ståhl, Z. Yang, et al. Gedi launches a new era of biomass inference from space. Environmental Research Letters, 17(9): 095001, 2022.
  9. R. d'Andrimont, M. Yordanov, L. Martinez- Sanchez, B. Eiselt, A. Palmieri, P. Dominici, J. Gallego, H. I. Reuter, C. Joebges, G. Lemoine, et al. Harmonised lucas in-situ land cover and use database for field surveys from 2006 to 2018 in the european union. Scientific data, 7 (1):352, 2020.
  10. C. Fefferman, S. Mitter, and H. Narayanan. Test- ing the manifold hypothesis. Journal of the American Mathematical Society, 29(4):983- 1049, 2016.
  11. S. Francini, T. Hermosilla, N. C. Coops, M. A. Wulder, J. C. White, and G. Chirici. An as- sessment approach for pixel-based image com- posites. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 202:1-12, 2023.
  12. F. Gascon, C. Bouzinac, O. Thépaut, M. Jung, B. Francesconi, J. Louis, V. Lonjou, B. Lafrance, S. Massera, A. Gaudel-Vacaresse, et al. Coper- nicus sentinel-2a calibration and products vali- dation status. Remote Sensing, 9(6):584, 2017.
  13. T. Gemini, P. Georgiev, V. I. Lei, R. Burnell, L. Bai, A. Gulati, G. Tanzer, D. Vincent, Z. Pan, S. Wang, et al. Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal under- standing across millions of tokens of context. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05530, 2024. · arXiv
  14. N. Gorelick, Z. Yang, P. Arévalo, E. L. Bullock, K. P. Insfrán, and S. P. Healey. A global time series dataset to facilitate forest greenhouse gas reporting. Environmental Research Letters, 18(8):084001, 2023.
  15. P. L. Guth and T. M. Geoffroy. Lidar point cloud and icesat-2 evaluation of 1 second global digi- tal elevation models: Copernicus wins. Trans- actions in GIS, 25(5):2245-2261, 2021.
  16. M. C. Hansen, P. V. Potapov, R. Moore, M. Hancher, S. A. Turubanova, A. Tyukavina, D. Thau, S. V. Stehman, S. J. Goetz, T. R. Love- land, et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. science, 342 (6160):850-853, 2013.
  17. R. M. Haralick, K. Shanmugam, and I. Dinstein. Textural features for image classification. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernet- ics, SMC-3(6):610-621, 1973. doi: 10.1109/ TSMC.1973.4309314. · DOI · Paper page
  18. G. C. Hulley, S. J. Hook, E. Abbott, N. Malakar, T. Islam, and M. Abrams. The aster global emissivity dataset (aster ged): Mapping earth's emissivity at 100 meter spatial scale. Geophysi- cal Research Letters, 42(19):7966-7976, 2015.
  19. J. Jakubik, L. Chu, P. Fraccaro, C. Gomes, G. Nyirjesy, R. Bangalore, D. Lambhate, K. Das, D. Oliveira Borges, D. Kimura, N. Simumba, D. Szwarcman, M. Muszynski, K. Welde- mariam, B. Zadrozny, R. Ganti, C. Costa, C. Edwards, Blair & Watson, K. Mukkavilli, H. Schmude, Johannes & Hamann, P. Robert, S. Roy, C. Phillips, K. Ankur, M. Ramasub- ramanian, I. Gurung, W. J. Leong, R. Avery, R. Ramachandran, M. Maskey, P. Olofossen, E. Fancher, T. Lee, K. Murphy, D. Duffy, M. Lit- tle, H. Alemohammad, M. Cecil, S. Li, S. Khal- laghi, D. Godwin, M. Ahmadi, F. Kordi, B. Saux, N. Pastick, P. Doucette, R. Fleckenstein, D. Lu- anga, A. Corvin, and E. Granger. Prithvi-100M, Aug. 2023a. J. Jakubik, S. Roy, C. Phillips, P. Fraccaro, D. God- win, B. Zadrozny, D. Szwarcman, C. Gomes, G. Nyirjesy, B. Edwards, et al. Foundation models for generalist geospatial artificial in- telligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.18660, 2023b. · arXiv
  20. Y. Kankaku, S. Suzuki, and Y. Osawa. Alos-2 mis- sion and development status. In 2013 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium-IGARSS, pages 2396-2399. IEEE, 2013.
  21. H. Kerner, C. Nakalembe, A. Yang, I. Zvonkov, R. McWeeny, G. Tseng, and I. Becker-Reshef. How accurate are existing land cover maps for agriculture in sub-saharan africa? Scientific Data, 11(1):486, 2024a.
  22. D. P. Kingma. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014. · arXiv
  23. K. Klemmer, E. Rolf, C. Robinson, L. Mackey, and M. Rußwurm. Satclip: Global, general-purpose location embeddings with satellite imagery. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artifi- cial Intelligence, volume 39, pages 4347-4355, 2025.
  24. R. P. Kornfeld, B. W. Arnold, M. A. Gross, N. T. Dahya, W. M. Klipstein, P. F. Gath, and S. Bet- tadpur. Grace-fo: the gravity recovery and cli- mate experiment follow-on mission. Journal of spacecraft and rockets, 56(3):931-951, 2019.
  25. C. N. Koyama, M. Shimada, M. Watanabe, and T. Tadono. Alos-2/palsar-2 long-term pantropi- cal observation-a paradigm shift in global for- est monitoring. In EUSAR 2022; 14th European Conference on Synthetic Aperture Radar, pages 1-5. VDE, 2022.
  26. A. Lacoste, N. Lehmann, P. Rodriguez, E. Sherwin, H. Kerner, B. Lütjens, J. Irvin, D. Dao, H. Alemo- hammad, A. Drouin, et al. Geo-bench: Toward foundation models for earth monitoring. Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:51080-51093, 2023.
  27. F. W. Landerer and S. Swenson. Accuracy of scaled grace terrestrial water storage estimates. Water resources research, 48(4), 2012.
  28. J.-S. Lee, T. L. Ainsworth, and Y. Wang. A review of polarimetric sar speckle filtering. In 2017 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sens- ing Symposium (IGARSS), pages 5303-5306. IEEE, 2017.
  29. A. J. Lister, H. Andersen, T. Frescino, D. Gatzi- olis, S. Healey, L. S. Heath, G. C. Liknes, R. McRoberts, G. G. Moisen, M. Nelson, et al. Use of remote sensing data to improve the ef- ficiency of national forest inventories: a case study from the united states national forest in- ventory. Forests, 11(12):1364, 2020.
  30. M. B. Lyons, N. J. Murray, E. V. Kennedy, E. M. Kovacs, C. Castro-Sanguino, S. R. Phinn, R. B. Acevedo, A. O. Alvarez, C. Say, P. Tudman, et al. New global area estimates for coral reefs from high-resolution mapping. Cell Reports Sustain- ability, 1(2), 2024.
  31. J. Masek, J. Ju, J.-C. Roger, S. Skakun, E. Vermote, M. Claverie, J. Dungan, Z. Yin, B. Freitag, and C. Justice. HLS operational land imager surface reflectance and TOA brightness daily global 30m v2.0, 2021. URL https://doi.org/10. 5067/HLS/HLSL30.002. · DOI
  32. F. S. Melton, J. Huntington, R. Grimm, J. Her- ring, M. Hall, D. Rollison, T. Erickson, R. Allen, M. Anderson, J. B. Fisher, et al. Openet: Filling a critical data gap in water management for the western united states. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 58 (6):971-994, 2022.
  33. J. Muñoz-Sabater, E. Dutra, A. Agustí-Panareda, C. Albergel, G. Arduini, G. Balsamo, S. Bous- setta, M. Choulga, S. Harrigan, H. Hersbach, et al. Era5-land: A state-of-the-art global re- analysis dataset for land applications. Earth system science data, 13(9):4349-4383, 2021.
  34. N. J. Murray, S. R. Phinn, M. DeWitt, R. Ferrari, R. Johnston, M. B. Lyons, N. Clinton, D. Thau, and R. A. Fuller. The global distribution and trajectory of tidal flats. Nature, 565(7738): 222-225, 2019.
  35. N. J. Murray, S. P. Phinn, R. A. Fuller, M. DeWitt, R. Ferrari, R. Johnston, N. Clinton, and M. B. Lyons. High-resolution global maps of tidal flat ecosystems from 1984 to 2019. Scientific Data, 9(1):542, 2022a.
  36. N. J. Murray, T. A. Worthington, P. Bunting, S. Duce, V. Hagger, C. E. Lovelock, R. Lucas, M. I. Saunders, M. Sheaves, M. Spalding, et al. High-resolution mapping of losses and gains of earth's tidal wetlands. Science, 376(6594): 744-749, 2022b.
  37. R. C. Nagy, J. K. Balch, E. K. Bissell, M. E. Cat- tau, N. F. Glenn, B. S. Halpern, N. Ilangakoon, B. Johnson, M. B. Joseph, S. Marconi, et al. Har- nessing the neon data revolution to advance open environmental science with a diverse and data-capable community. Ecosphere, 12(12): e03833, 2021.
  38. V. J. Pasquarella, P. Arévalo, K. H. Bratley, E. L. Bullock, N. Gorelick, Z. Yang, and R. E. Kennedy. Demystifying landtrendr and ccdc temporal segmentation. International journal of applied earth observation and geoinformation, 110:102806, 2022.
  39. V. J. Pasquarella, C. F. Brown, W. Czerwinski, and W. J. Rucklidge. Comprehensive quality assess- ment of optical satellite imagery using weakly supervised video learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2125-2135, 2023.
  40. F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V. Dubourg, et al. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in python. the Journal of machine Learning research, 12:2825- 2830, 2011.
  41. J.-F. Pekel, A. Cottam, N. Gorelick, and A. S. Bel- ward. High-resolution mapping of global sur- face water and its long-term changes. Nature, 540(7633):418-422, 2016.
  42. B. Pengra, S. Stehman, J. Horton, R. Auch, S. Kambly, M. Knuppe, D. Sorenson, C. Ro- bison, and J. Taylor. Lcmap conus reference data product 1984-2021 land cover, land use and change process attributes: Us geologi- cal survey data release.[dataset] https://doi. org/10.5066, 2023.
  43. P. Potin, B. Rosich, P. Grimont, N. Miranda, I. Shurmer, A. O'Connell, R. Torres, and M. Krassenburg. Sentinel-1 mission status. In Proceedings of EUSAR 2016: 11th European Con- ference on Synthetic Aperture Radar, pages 1-6.
  44. A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion. In International conference on machine learning, pages 8748-8763. PmLR, 2021.
  45. E. Rolf, J. Proctor, T. Carleton, I. Bolliger, V. Shankar, M. Ishihara, B. Recht, and S. Hsiang. A generalizable and accessible approach to ma- chine learning with global satellite imagery. Na- ture Communications, 12(1):4392, 2021.
  46. E. Rolf, K. Klemmer, C. Robinson, and H. Kerner. Mission critical-satellite data is a distinct modality in machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01444, 2024. · arXiv
  47. M. Schmitt, S. A. Ahmadi, Y. Xu, G. Taşkin, U. Verma, F. Sica, and R. Hänsch. There are no data like more data: Datasets for deep learn- ing in earth observation. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine, 11(3):63-97, 2023.
  48. M. Simard, M. Denbina, C. Marshak, and M. Neu- mann. A global evaluation of radar-derived digital elevation models: Srtm, nasadem, and glo-30. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeo- sciences, 129(11):e2023JG007672, 2024.
  49. R. Stanimirova, K. Tarrio, K. Turlej, K. McAvoy, S. Stonebrook, K.-T. Hu, P. Arévalo, E. L. Bul- lock, Y. Zhang, C. E. Woodcock, et al. A global land cover training dataset from 1984 to 2020. Scientific Data, 10(1):879, 2023.
  50. X. Sun, B. Wang, Z. Wang, H. Li, H. Li, and K. Fu. Research progress on few-shot learning for remote sensing image interpretation. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Ob- servations and Remote Sensing, 14:2387-2402, 2021.
  51. B. D. Tapley. Gravity model determination from the grace mission. The Journal of the Astronau- tical Sciences, 56(3):273-285, 2008.
  52. R. Torres, P. Snoeij, D. Geudtner, D. Bibby, M. Davidson, E. Attema, P. Potin, B. Rommen, N. Floury, M. Brown, et al. Gmes sentinel-1 J. Verbesselt, R. Hyndman, G. Newnham, and D. Culvenor. Detecting trend and seasonal changes in satellite image time series. Remote sensing of Environment, 114(1):106-115, 2010.
  53. J. M. Volk, J. L. Huntington, F. S. Melton, R. Allen, M. Anderson, J. B. Fisher, A. Kilic, A. Ruhoff, G. B. Senay, B. Minor, et al. Assessing the accu- racy of openet satellite-based evapotranspira- tion data to support water resource and land management applications. Nature Water, 2(2): 193-205, 2024.
  54. J. Wang, K. Sun, T. Cheng, B. Jiang, C. Deng, Y. Zhao, D. Liu, Y. Mu, M. Tan, X. Wang, et al. Deep high-resolution representation learning for visual recognition. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 43 (10):3349-3364, 2020.
  55. J. C. White, M. Wulder, G. Hobart, J. Luther, T. Hermosilla, P. Griffiths, N. Coops, R. Hall, P. Hostert, A. Dyk, et al. Pixel-based image compositing for large-area dense time series applications and science. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing, 40(3):192-212, 2014.
  56. J. Wickham, C. Homer, J. Vogelmann, A. McK- errow, R. Mueller, N. Herold, and J. Coulston. The multi-resolution land characteristics (mrlc) consortium-20 years of development and inte- gration of usa national land cover data. Remote Sensing, 6(8):7424-7441, 2014.
  57. J. Wickham, S. V. Stehman, D. G. Sorenson, L. Gass, and J. A. Dewitz. Thematic accuracy assessment of the nlcd 2019 land cover for the conterminous united states. GIScience & remote sensing, 60(1):2181143, 2023.
  58. B. T. Wilson, J. F. Knight, and R. E. McRoberts. Harmonic regression of landsat time series for modeling attributes from national forest inven- tory data. ISPRS journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 137:29-46, 2018.
  59. M. A. Wulder, T. Hermosilla, J. C. White, C. W. Bater, G. Hobart, and S. C. Bronson. De- velopment and implementation of a stand- level satellite-based forest inventory for canada. Forestry: An International Journal of Forest Re- search, 97(4):546-563, 2024.
  60. Y. Zeng, D. Hao, A. Huete, B. Dechant, J. Berry, J. M. Chen, J. Joiner, C. Frankenberg, B. Bond- Lamberty, Y. Ryu, et al. Optical vegetation indices for monitoring terrestrial ecosystems globally. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 3(7):477-493, 2022.
  61. X. X. Zhu, D. Tuia, L. Mou, G.-S. Xia, L. Zhang, F. Xu, and F. Fraundorfer. Deep learning in remote sensing: A comprehensive review and list of resources. IEEE geoscience and remote sensing magazine, 5(4):8-36, 2017.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 344

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Brown, C. F., Kazmierski, M. R., Pasquarella, V. J., Rucklidge, W. J., Samsikova, M., Zhang, C., Shelhamer, E., Lahera, E., Wiles, O., Ilyushchenko, S., Gorelick, N., Zhang, L. L., Alj, S., Schechter, E., Askay, S., Guinan, O., Moore, R., Boukouvalas, A., & Kohli, P.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2507.22291
arXiv
2507.22291
OpenAlex
W6948349386
Semantic Scholar
0edf512a0375908943b80777e8abb290354848b2
Cited by
172
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 156 · 2025: 16
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Remote-Sensing Image Classification
  • Social Sciences › Geography, Planning and Development › Geographic Information Systems Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Geostatistics and Mapping
Keywords
global mapping, Earth observation, AlphaEarth Foundations

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review