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

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 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

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Figures

Figure 1 Embedding fields paradigm. (A) Error ratios across evaluations from the next-best model/dataset to AlphaEarth Foundations (AEF). Classification errors (bars marked with *) are measured in Balanced Error Rate kappa (BER 𝜅 ), and regression errors are measured in MAE -1 (bars marked with †). The pair of numbers on each bar indicate balanced accuracy (BA) for classification tasks and MAE for regression tasks, with AEF on top and the next-best model/dataset below. Best-case performance was selected independently for both the next-best model/dataset and for AEF by selecting the most performant method of transfer (kNN k=1, kNN k=3, linear) for each evaluation. For each
Figure 1 Embedding fields paradigm. (A) Error ratios across evaluations from the next-best model/dataset to AlphaEarth Foundations (AEF). Classification errors (bars marked with *) are measured in Balanced Error Rate kappa (BER 𝜅 ), and regression errors are measured in MAE -1 (bars marked with †). The pair of numbers on each bar indicate balanced accuracy (BA) for classification tasks and MAE for regression tasks, with AEF on top and the next-best model/dataset below. Best-case performance was selected independently for both the next-best model/dataset and for AEF by selecting the most performant method of transfer (kNN k=1, kNN k=3, linear) for each evaluation. For eachCC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure 2 AlphaEarth Foundations. (A) Block diagram of the overall network architecture used for video analysis. Preprocessing converts raw observation data via normalization using global statistics, and acquisition timestamps are converted to sinusoidal timecodes. Individual source encoders transform inputs to the same latent space before entering the bulk of the model. Outputs are summarized using conditional timecodes or "summary periods", unique to each decoded source and contrastive learning task. 𝜇 refers to the embedding outputs of the model. The grey shaded region constitutes the model. (B) Model outputs are treated as the mean direction of a von Mises-Fisher distribution, and decoding proceeds by sampling this distribution, and concatenating it with sensor geometry metadata and a timecode indicating the relative position in the valid period to decode. Decoding proceeds for all sources, with losses dependent on the characteristics of each source (see supplemental materials S1). (C) To prevent collapse and improve performance, embeddings are compared to equivalent batch-rotated embeddings using a dot product. The absolute value of this quantity is minimized as a necessary condition for an empirically uniform distribution in 𝑆 63 . (D) Block diagram of the model bulk, consisting of simultaneous pathways at different resolutions to maintain efficiency and spatial precision. (E) Contrastive learning between the video teacher and student model, and text encoder. (F) Complete 360° view of 2023 annual embedding field covering Earth's land surface including minor islands over approximately ± 82°.
Figure 2 AlphaEarth Foundations. (A) Block diagram of the overall network architecture used for video analysis. Preprocessing converts raw observation data via normalization using global statistics, and acquisition timestamps are converted to sinusoidal timecodes. Individual source encoders transform inputs to the same latent space before entering the bulk of the model. Outputs are summarized using conditional timecodes or "summary periods", unique to each decoded source and contrastive learning task. 𝜇 refers to the embedding outputs of the model. The grey shaded region constitutes the model. (B) Model outputs are treated as the mean direction of a von Mises-Fisher distribution, and decoding proceeds by sampling this distribution, and concatenating it with sensor geometry metadata and a timecode indicating the relative position in the valid period to decode. Decoding proceeds for all sources, with losses dependent on the characteristics of each source (see supplemental materials S1). (C) To prevent collapse and improve performance, embeddings are compared to equivalent batch-rotated embeddings using a dot product. The absolute value of this quantity is minimized as a necessary condition for an empirically uniform distribution in 𝑆 63 . (D) Block diagram of the model bulk, consisting of simultaneous pathways at different resolutions to maintain efficiency and spatial precision. (E) Contrastive learning between the video teacher and student model, and text encoder. (F) Complete 360° view of 2023 annual embedding field covering Earth's land surface including minor islands over approximately ± 82°.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure 3 Detailed quantitative and qualitative results from select evaluations. The black dottedline indicates random chance for classification evaluations. Error bars indicate 1 𝜎 accuracy / R 2 or ∼ 68.27% confidence interval by bootstrapping and k-folds when possible. Most baselines are completely unable to explain evapotranspiration from our testing, achieving a negative 𝑅 2 , and so the
Figure 3 Detailed quantitative and qualitative results from select evaluations. The black dottedline indicates random chance for classification evaluations. Error bars indicate 1 𝜎 accuracy / R 2 or ∼ 68.27% confidence interval by bootstrapping and k-folds when possible. Most baselines are completely unable to explain evapotranspiration from our testing, achieving a negative 𝑅 2 , and so theCC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Image 4
CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure S1 Training site selection. (Top) 5,145,244 unique ( 𝑥 , 𝑦 ) locations prioritized as potential training sites, (Bottom) final set of training sample locations ( 𝑥 , 𝑦 , 𝑡 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑡 , 𝑡 𝑒𝑛𝑑 ).
Figure S1 Training site selection. (Top) 5,145,244 unique ( 𝑥 , 𝑦 ) locations prioritized as potential training sites, (Bottom) final set of training sample locations ( 𝑥 , 𝑦 , 𝑡 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑡 , 𝑡 𝑒𝑛𝑑 ).CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure S2 Breakdown of image samples by sensor.
Figure S2 Breakdown of image samples by sensor.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Image 7
CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure S3 Distribution of LCMAP land use/cover sample locations.
Figure S3 Distribution of LCMAP land use/cover sample locations.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Image 9
CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure S4 Distribution of LCMAP land cover change sample locations.
Figure S4 Distribution of LCMAP land cover change sample locations.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure S5 Distribution of LUCAS survey points.
Figure S5 Distribution of LUCAS survey points.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure S6 Distribution of GLaNCE sample locations.
Figure S6 Distribution of GLaNCE sample locations.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure S7 Distribution of Africa crop mask sample locations.
Figure S7 Distribution of Africa crop mask sample locations.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Image 14
CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure S8 Distribution of Canada crops sample locations.
Figure S8 Distribution of Canada crops sample locations.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure S9 Distribution of Ethiopia crops sample locations.
Figure S9 Distribution of Ethiopia crops sample locations.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure S10 Distribution of US trees sample locations.
Figure S10 Distribution of US trees sample locations.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure S11 Distribution of Descals oil palm sample locations.
Figure S11 Distribution of Descals oil palm sample locations.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure S12 Distribution of OpenET ensemble sample locations.
Figure S12 Distribution of OpenET ensemble sample locations.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Image 20
CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure S13 Distribution of OpenET ensemble values. Values are reported in total mm evapotranspiration (ET) per month.
Figure S13 Distribution of OpenET ensemble values. Values are reported in total mm evapotranspiration (ET) per month.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure S14 Distribution of ASTER GED sample locations.
Figure S14 Distribution of ASTER GED sample locations.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure S15 Distribution of ASTER GED values. Note that emissivity of natural Earth surfaces is a unitless quantity that typically ranges between 0.6 and 1.0. Surfaces with emissivities less than 0.85 are typically found over deserts and semiarid areas; vegetation, water, and ice have high emissivities above 0.95.
Figure S15 Distribution of ASTER GED values. Note that emissivity of natural Earth surfaces is a unitless quantity that typically ranges between 0.6 and 1.0. Surfaces with emissivities less than 0.85 are typically found over deserts and semiarid areas; vegetation, water, and ice have high emissivities above 0.95.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure S16 Classification results reported in terms of balanced accuracy. Black dotted line indicates expected accuracy given random chance / number of classes. Error bars indicate 1 𝜎 (68 . 27%) confidence interval by bootstrapping or bootstrapping and k-folds for small datasets, e.g., ethiopia_crops, canada_crops_*.
Figure S16 Classification results reported in terms of balanced accuracy. Black dotted line indicates expected accuracy given random chance / number of classes. Error bars indicate 1 𝜎 (68 . 27%) confidence interval by bootstrapping or bootstrapping and k-folds for small datasets, e.g., ethiopia_crops, canada_crops_*.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure S17 Regression results reported in terms of mean 𝑅 2 values. Error bars indicate 1 𝜎 (68.27%) confidence interval by bootstrapping. Negative 𝑅 2 estimates were clamped to zero for visualization purposes.
Figure S17 Regression results reported in terms of mean 𝑅 2 values. Error bars indicate 1 𝜎 (68.27%) confidence interval by bootstrapping. Negative 𝑅 2 estimates were clamped to zero for visualization purposes.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure S18 Regression results reported in terms of Mean Absolute Error (MAE). Error bars indicate 1 𝜎 (68.27%) confidence interval by bootstrapping. Dotted line represents approximate expectation of error from product publications.
Figure S18 Regression results reported in terms of Mean Absolute Error (MAE). Error bars indicate 1 𝜎 (68.27%) confidence interval by bootstrapping. Dotted line represents approximate expectation of error from product publications.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure S19 Change detection results reported in terms of balanced accuracy. The black dottedline indicates random chance for classification evaluations given the number of classes. Error bars indicate 1 𝜎 (68.27%)confidence interval by bootstrapping.
Figure S19 Change detection results reported in terms of balanced accuracy. The black dottedline indicates random chance for classification evaluations given the number of classes. Error bars indicate 1 𝜎 (68.27%)confidence interval by bootstrapping.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Image 28
CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure S21 Effects of additional source groups for evals in linear probe max-trial regime. Error bars indicate 1 𝜎 BA / 𝑅 2 or ~68.27% confidence interval by bootstrapping and k-folds when possible. The London-fog-blue bar to the far right matches the version of AEF used in other comparisons.
Figure S21 Effects of additional source groups for evals in linear probe max-trial regime. Error bars indicate 1 𝜎 BA / 𝑅 2 or ~68.27% confidence interval by bootstrapping and k-folds when possible. The London-fog-blue bar to the far right matches the version of AEF used in other comparisons.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure S22 Evaluation performance as a function of embedding dimension (Embedding 𝐷 ) and VMF kappa ( 𝜅 ) for all trial sizes (1 shot, 10 shot, and max shot) and methods of transfer (nearest neighbors for k=1, k=3, and linear probe). The red square indicates the parameter setting (Embedding 𝐷 = 64, 𝜅 = 8 𝜅 ) used for AEF.
Figure S22 Evaluation performance as a function of embedding dimension (Embedding 𝐷 ) and VMF kappa ( 𝜅 ) for all trial sizes (1 shot, 10 shot, and max shot) and methods of transfer (nearest neighbors for k=1, k=3, and linear probe). The red square indicates the parameter setting (Embedding 𝐷 = 64, 𝜅 = 8 𝜅 ) used for AEF.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure S22 (con't) Evaluation performance as a function of embedding dimension (Embedding 𝐷 ) and VMF kappa ( 𝜅 ) for all trial sizes (1 shot, 10 shot, and max shot) and methods of transfer (nearest neighbors for k=1, k=3, and linear probe). The red square indicates the parameter setting (Embedding 𝐷 = 64, 𝜅 = 8 𝜅 ) used for AEF.
Figure S22 (con't) Evaluation performance as a function of embedding dimension (Embedding 𝐷 ) and VMF kappa ( 𝜅 ) for all trial sizes (1 shot, 10 shot, and max shot) and methods of transfer (nearest neighbors for k=1, k=3, and linear probe). The red square indicates the parameter setting (Embedding 𝐷 = 64, 𝜅 = 8 𝜅 ) used for AEF.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure S22 (con't) Evaluation performance as a function of embedding dimension (Embedding 𝐷 ) and VMF kappa ( 𝜅 ) for all trial sizes (1 shot, 10 shot, and max shot) and methods of transfer (nearest neighbors for k=1, k=3, and linear probe). The red square indicates the parameter setting (Embedding 𝐷 = 64, 𝜅 = 8 𝜅 ) used for AEF.
Figure S22 (con't) Evaluation performance as a function of embedding dimension (Embedding 𝐷 ) and VMF kappa ( 𝜅 ) for all trial sizes (1 shot, 10 shot, and max shot) and methods of transfer (nearest neighbors for k=1, k=3, and linear probe). The red square indicates the parameter setting (Embedding 𝐷 = 64, 𝜅 = 8 𝜅 ) used for AEF.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure S22 (con't) Evaluation performance as a function of embedding dimension (Embedding 𝐷 ) and VMF kappa ( 𝜅 ) for all trial sizes (1 shot, 10 shot, and max shot) and methods of transfer (nearest neighbors for k=1, k=3, and linear probe). The red square indicates the parameter setting (Embedding 𝐷 = 64, 𝜅 = 8 𝜅 ) used for AEF.
Figure S22 (con't) Evaluation performance as a function of embedding dimension (Embedding 𝐷 ) and VMF kappa ( 𝜅 ) for all trial sizes (1 shot, 10 shot, and max shot) and methods of transfer (nearest neighbors for k=1, k=3, and linear probe). The red square indicates the parameter setting (Embedding 𝐷 = 64, 𝜅 = 8 𝜅 ) used for AEF.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
(a) Quantization results for regression evals.
(a) Quantization results for regression evals.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
(b) Quantization results for change detection evals.
(b) Quantization results for change detection evals.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
(c) Quantization results for classification evals.
(c) Quantization results for classification evals.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

64 Own result · 41 Own interpretation · 31 No basis given · 26 Own method · 21 Sources not found · 3 Not checked yet

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.

7 of 7

Citations

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. F. W. Landerer and S. Swenson. Accuracy of scaled grace terrestrial water storage estimates. Water resources research, 48(4), 2012.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. B. D. Tapley. Gravity model determination from the grace mission. The Journal of the Astronau- tical Sciences, 56(3):273-285, 2008.
  30. 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.
  31. 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.
  32. 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.
  33. 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.
  34. 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.
  35. 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.
  36. 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.
  37. 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.
  38. 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.
  39. 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

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