Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 42 references

Uncertainty-Aware Regression for Socio-Economic Estimation via Multi-View Remote Sensing

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Structuring satellite imagery into four meaningful three-band views improves child-poverty prediction and yields calibrated uncertainty for guiding survey collection.

desk verdict A clean, incremental multi-view extension of DINOv2 for poverty mapping, with a small gain that is partly confounded by ensembling and a temporal mismatch that needs addressing. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14119 v1 pith:UZBBJ3LK submitted 2024-11-21 cs.CV

Fan Yang , Sahoko Ishida , Mengyan Zhang , Daniel Jenson , Swapnil Mishra , Jhonathan Navott , Seth Flaxman This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords multi-viewremotesensingspectralbandcombinationschildpovertyestimationsatelliteimageryregressionuncertaintyquantificationBayesianlineartransferlearning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that a satellite-imagery model can estimate child poverty more accurately by looking at the same location through several carefully chosen three-band views instead of standard RGB or all thirteen Sentinel-2 bands at once. Each view—natural color, false color emphasizing vegetation, a land-moisture view, and an agriculture view—is fed through a separate pretrained DINOv2 vision transformer, and the resulting features are concatenated and regressed onto survey-derived poverty indicators. On the KidSat benchmark covering 16 countries in Eastern and Southern Africa, the multi-view model reaches a mean absolute error of 0.1605, beating the best RGB-only model (0.1663) and a multispectral baseline (0.1993). The paper also claims that Bayesian linear regression with a shrinkage prior yields well-calibrated uncertainty estimates that could guide where to collect future ground-truth surveys.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the multi-view encoding scheme: four curated three-band composites of the same 10 km × 10 km location, each selected to expose a different landscape property, are each passed through a separate pretrained DINOv2 ViT-Base model. The four views are natural color for visible urban form, false color for vegetation health via near-infrared, land moisture for soil and water content via short-wave infrared plus coastal blue, and agriculture for crop vigor via SWIR–NIR–red. Their fine-tuned feature vectors are concatenated into one representation, and a ridge regression maps it to the target. The uncertainty pipeline then runs a fully Bayesian linear regression on that concatenated representation, using a half-Student-t shrinkage prior on the coefficients (degrees of freedom set to 3, with the horseshoe prior as a limiting case) and sampling with Stan, to obtain a posterior predictive distribution whose variance serves as the uncertainty estimate.

What would settle it

Re-run the KidSat evaluation using only DHS clusters surveyed after June 2015, or pair each survey with the Sentinel-2 image closest in date to the interview, and recompute the multi-view mean absolute error and Bayesian interval coverage; if the 0.1605 gain over RGB and the 0.951 coverage disappear or reverse, the temporal mismatch is driving the result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that structuring multispectral satellite data into meaningful three-band views—rather than feeding raw band stacks to a model—lets a generic RGB-pretrained vision transformer extract features that better predict a normalized 'severe deprivation' child-poverty score. Four views are used: natural color (B4, B3, B2), false color (B8, B4, B2), land moisture (B12, B1, B3), and agriculture (B11, B8, B2). Each view is encoded by a separate DINOv2 ViT-Base, fine-tuned on a 99-dimensional poverty vector derived from DHS survey sub-indicators, and the concatenated representations are mapped to the target with ridge regression. The paper reports that this multi-view model achieves a mean absolute error of 0.1605, consistently outperforming every single view and the comparison models. For uncertainty, the paper argues that Bayesian linear regression with a horseshoe-style shrinkage prior is the better of the two estimators tested: it gives 95% predictive interval coverage of 0.951 with interval length 0.712, versus 0.750 coverage at length 0.955 for heteroscedastic deep regression (a network that predicts input-dependent variance), and lower negative log-likelihood and continuous ranked probability score throughout.

Load-bearing premise

Sentinel-2 imagery only exists from June 2015, yet the KidSat evaluation pairs it with DHS surveys collected between 1997 and 2022; if the imagery does not reflect conditions at the time of the survey, the reported errors and uncertainty calibrations do not measure what they claim to measure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Using multiple curated three-band views improves prediction over any single view and over RGB-only or unstructured multispectral inputs, so the way bands are organized into views carries information by itself.
  • Bayesian linear regression with a shrinkage prior yields better-calibrated intervals than heteroscedastic deep regression on this task, suggesting that a cheap post-hoc Bayesian layer can outperform learned variance for high-dimensional satellite features.
  • The model's uncertainty estimates can be used to prioritize new DHS ground-truth collection at locations with high posterior variance, making survey campaigns more efficient.
  • Fine-tuning a generic RGB-pretrained transformer on survey-derived poverty vectors transfers better than training from scratch, reinforcing transfer learning as the default choice for small survey datasets.
  • The framework is presented as target-agnostic, so the same views and uncertainty pipeline should apply to other socioeconomic variables whenever survey-labeled satellite imagery is available.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension the paper does not run: restrict the KidSat evaluation to DHS surveys conducted after June 2015, when Sentinel-2 imagery exists, to separate the multi-view gain from artifacts of pairing recent imagery with older survey labels.
  • If the temporal mismatch matters, the reported 0.1605 mean absolute error and 0.951 coverage would both be optimistic, and the gap between Bayesian linear regression and heteroscedastic regression could shrink on date-matched data.
  • The view-selection principle suggests an active-learning variant: weight or choose the three-band views per region according to their posterior variance, rather than treating all four views as equally informative.
  • The same Bayesian linear regression pipeline could be tested on other satellite benchmarks with different survey targets, since its coverage calibration depends on feature dimensionality and prior choice, not on child poverty specifically.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a multi-view framework for estimating child poverty from Sentinel-2 satellite imagery. It processes four hand-crafted three-band spectral views (natural color, false color, land moisture, agriculture) through separate pre-trained DINOv2 vision transformers, fine-tunes each on a 99-dimensional poverty vector, concatenates the resulting features, and applies ridge regression to predict the severe deprivation target. The paper also evaluates two uncertainty estimation methods: heteroscedastic regression and Bayesian linear regression with a shrinkage prior. Experiments on the KidSat benchmark compare the multi-view model against RGB and multi-spectral baselines, reporting a lower mean absolute error (0.1605 vs. 0.1663 for single-view DINOv2) and better uncertainty calibration for Bayesian linear regression.

Significance. The multi-view idea is appealing because it offers a simple way to exploit multi-spectral data with generic pre-trained vision models, and the uncertainty estimation component addresses a practical need for targeted data collection. The paper provides code and uses a public benchmark, and the Bayesian linear regression implementation is reasonably detailed. However, the central empirical claims are weakened by a temporal mismatch between imagery and survey years, a confound between multi-view and model ensembling, and the lack of statistical tests. These issues affect the validity of the headline results and the stated contribution, though they appear fixable within the manuscript's scope.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1 and Supplementary B.2] The main evaluation pairs Sentinel-2 imagery with DHS survey outcomes collected between 1997 and 2022, but Sentinel-2 has only been operational since June 2015. Section B.2 acknowledges this limitation, but the main analysis does not restrict to post-2015 surveys or otherwise address the temporal gap. For pre-2015 surveys, the imagery postdates the outcome, so the model may be predicting the past using future information. This undermines the validity of the reported errors and uncertainty calibration. The authors should either restrict the evaluation to surveys after 2015, use Landsat imagery for earlier periods, or explicitly model the temporal gap.
  2. [Section 4.3, Tables 1 and 2] The multi-view model consists of four separately fine-tuned DINOv2 encoders whose features are concatenated, whereas the RGB baseline is a single encoder. Table 2 shows that the concatenated 'All' representation beats every individual view in every fold, which is exactly what an ensemble of diverse predictors would produce regardless of whether the diversity comes from spectral bands, random seeds, or augmentations. The paper attributes the improvement to the specific spectral band groups, but no control is reported for an equal-capacity RGB ensemble (e.g., four copies of the same RGB view with different initializations) or a set of random three-band triples. Without such controls, the improvement in Table 1 cannot be attributed to the structured use of multi-spectral bands rather than to the increased number of encoders and higher feature dimensionality.
  3. [Section 4.3.1, Table 1] The reported improvement over the RGB baseline (0.1605 vs. 0.1663) is small relative to the reported standard errors (0.0020 and 0.0023), and no statistical significance test is presented. The claim of outperformance is therefore not statistically supported. Additionally, SatMAE is evaluated at 224x224 resolution while all other models use 994x994 imagery, which handicaps the primary multi-spectral baseline and makes the comparison in Table 1 unfair. The authors should either evaluate SatMAE at the same resolution or clearly justify the resolution mismatch.
  4. [Section 4.4, Table 3] The uncertainty evaluation compares only the proposed Bayesian linear regression against a simple heteroscedastic regression, with no standard uncertainty baselines such as MC dropout, deep ensembles, or quantile regression. The paper itself notes that 'further investigation with additional models is warranted,' but the abstract and conclusion make the stronger claim that the framework 'helps identify uncertain predictions' and guides data acquisition. No downstream task (e.g., active learning or targeted survey design) demonstrates this benefit. The temporal mismatch also affects uncertainty calibration. These results are preliminary and do not support the strong uncertainty-related claims.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.4.1] The text states that the horseshoe prior (nu=1) was compared with the regularized horseshoe prior and that only minor differences were observed, but no results of this comparison are shown; please include the comparison or remove the claim.
  2. [Section 3.1] The feature concatenation is written as F_i ∈ R^{P × V d}, but the intended object is a row vector of dimension Vd; the notation should be corrected to R^{V d} or R^{1 × V d}.
  3. [Section 4.1] The KidSat dataset covers 1997-2022, but the paper never reports the distribution of survey years or the number of image-survey pairs that fall before Sentinel-2's launch; this information is essential for assessing the temporal mismatch.
  4. [Supplementary A] The code link is described as 'this GitHub repository,' but the actual URL is not visible in the text; please ensure the link is explicit.
  5. [Figure 2] The caption uses 'Fault Color View' but the text consistently refers to it as 'False-Color View'; please correct the typo.
  6. [Section 4.3] The choice of the four views is presented as intuitive but is ultimately ad hoc; the authors should provide a systematic justification, such as an ablation over all 3-band combinations or a comparison to random triples, to support the claim that these particular band groupings are meaningful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the multi-view prediction and uncertainty claims are fresh empirical measurements on the external KidSat benchmark; shared authorship of that benchmark does not make the derivation circular.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is: construct four 3-band Sentinel-2 views, fine-tune a pre-trained DINOv2 encoder per view on a 99-dimensional poverty vector, concatenate the view features, and regress severe deprivation with ridge or Bayesian linear regression. Each step is a standard empirical pipeline: the 99-dimensional vector is an auxiliary supervisory signal, the target 'severe deprivation' is a separate survey-derived quantity, and evaluation is by 5-fold cross-validation on held-out locations. No equation defines the prediction in terms of the fitted parameters used to report the result, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The comparison to the KidSat benchmark cites prior work by overlapping authors, but KidSat is an external dataset of DHS survey outcomes and satellite imagery, so the citation is independent support rather than a load-bearing self-citation. The multi-view gain over RGB is an empirical result; the absence of an equal-capacity RGB ensemble control is a potential confound in the experimental design, but it is not a reduction-by-construction and therefore not circularity. Likewise, the Sentinel-2 temporal mismatch noted in Supplementary B.2, and the paper's own acknowledgement that only two uncertainty methods were compared, are data-validity and scope limitations, not circular steps.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the KidSat benchmark labels, the temporal representativeness of post-2015 Sentinel-2 imagery for surveys dating back to 1997, the transferability of ImageNet-pretrained DINOv2 features, the hand-selected view set, and the sufficiency of a linear head. These are domain assumptions rather than fitted parameters, with the ridge alpha and BLR degrees of freedom being the main numerical choices. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Ridge regularization strength (RidgeCV) = selected by cross-validation (not reported)
    Section 3.1: 'a ridge regression with cross-validation (RidgeCV) for hyperparameter tuning is then used to predict the target variable'. The chosen alpha is data-dependent and directly affects the reported MAE.
  • Half-t prior degrees of freedom nu = nu = 3
    Section 4.4.1: 'We selected nu = 3 and compared this with ... regularized horseshoe prior'. The choice is by hand and affects shrinkage and uncertainty estimates.
  • Sentinel-2 normalization scaling = 0-3000 mapped to 0-255
    Supplementary B.2 fixes a scaling for input pixel values; different normalization changes image statistics and could affect transfer performance.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption DHS survey data in KidSat provides accurate ground truth for severe deprivation at each cluster location.
    The entire evaluation treats the KidSat severe deprivation variable as a reliable target; any survey error propagates into all reported MAEs.
  • domain assumption Sentinel-2 imagery, available only from 2015, is temporally representative of survey outcomes collected between 1997 and 2022.
    Section 4.1 pairs Sentinel-2 images with DHS surveys spanning 1997-2022; Supplementary B.2 acknowledges the 2015 operational start, but the main evaluation never restricts to post-2015 surveys or adjusts for time gaps.
  • domain assumption Features from a DINOv2 ViT-Base pre-trained on ImageNet transfer meaningfully to satellite imagery after fine-tuning.
    Section 4.2.2 relies on this to claim pre-trained models outperform raw models; the backbone is never re-trained from scratch on satellite data, so poor transfer would invalidate all results.
  • ad hoc to paper The four hand-picked three-band views (RGB, false-color, moisture, agriculture) are sufficient and complementary for poverty prediction.
    Section 4.3 fixes V=4 views based on remote-sensing intuition; no ablation over other band triples or counts is reported, so the choice is assumed rather than derived.
  • domain assumption A linear head (ridge or Bayesian linear regression) is sufficient after fine-tuning the encoder.
    Section 3.1 and 3.2 use a linear map on concatenated features; if the true relationship is nonlinear, predictions and uncertainty would be misspecified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Uncertainty-Aware Regression for Socio-Economic Estimation via Multi-View Remote Sensing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UZBBJ3LK

@misc{pith2026241114119,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Uncertainty-Aware Regression for Socio-Economic Estimation via Multi-View Remote Sensing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UZBBJ3LK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14119}
}
read the original abstract

Remote sensing imagery offers rich spectral data across extensive areas for Earth observation. Many attempts have been made to leverage these data with transfer learning to develop scalable alternatives for estimating socio-economic conditions, reducing reliance on expensive survey-collected data. However, much of this research has primarily focused on daytime satellite imagery due to the limitation that most pre-trained models are trained on 3-band RGB images. Consequently, modeling techniques for spectral bands beyond the visible spectrum have not been thoroughly investigated. Additionally, quantifying uncertainty in remote sensing regression has been less explored, yet it is essential for more informed targeting and iterative collection of ground truth survey data. In this paper, we introduce a novel framework that leverages generic foundational vision models to process remote sensing imagery using combinations of three spectral bands to exploit multi-spectral data. We also employ methods such as heteroscedastic regression and Bayesian modeling to generate uncertainty estimates for the predictions. Experimental results demonstrate that our method outperforms existing models that use RGB or multi-spectral models with unstructured band usage. Moreover, our framework helps identify uncertain predictions, guiding future ground truth data acquisition.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14119 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We select distinct satellite views of the same location across different band groups, capturing unique spatial features. These views are then processed through separate pre-trained vision models to extract satellite features, which are subsequently aggregated to predict the target variable with associated uncertainty estimates. ing with high-resolution satellite images of varying dimen￾sions. Recent developments in … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Examples of different views near Murchison Bay, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Validation errors for predicting severe deprivation using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example Predictions for Rwanda in 2019. Figure (a): Ground truth labels derived from the DHS dataset, visualized using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    State-of-the-art deep learning methods for objects detection in remote sensing satellite images

    Adekanmi Adeyinka Adegun, Jean Vincent Fonou Dombeu, Serestina Viriri, and John Odindi. State-of-the-art deep learning methods for objects detection in remote sensing satellite images. Sensors, 23(13), 2023. 1

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Bennett and L

    M. Bennett and L. Smith. Advances in using multitempo- ral night-time lights satellite imagery to detect, estimate, and monitor socioeconomic dynamics. Remote Sensing of Envi- ronment, 192:176–197, 2017. 2

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Md Abul Ehsan Bhuiyan, Chandi Witharana, Anna K Lil- jedahl, Benjamin M Jones, Ronald Daanen, Howard E Ep- stein, Kelcy Kent, Claire G Griffin, and Amber Agnew. Un- derstanding the effects of optimal combination of spectral bands on deep learning model predictions: a case study based on permafrost tundra landform mapping using high resolution multispectra...

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Lobell, and Stefano Ermon

    Marshall Burke, Anne Driscoll, David B. Lobell, and Stefano Ermon. Using satellite imagery to understand and promote sustainable development. Science, 371(6535):eabe8628,

    work page

  5. [5]

    Emerg- ing properties in self-supervised vision transformers

    Mathilde Caron, Hugo Touvron, Ishan Misra, Herv ´e Jegou, Julien Mairal, Piotr Bojanowski, and Armand Joulin. Emerg- ing properties in self-supervised vision transformers. In 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vi- sion (ICCV), pages 9630–9640, 2021. 3

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Handling sparsity via the horseshoe

    Carlos M Carvalho, Nicholas G Polson, and James G Scott. Handling sparsity via the horseshoe. InArtificial intelligence and statistics, pages 73–80. PMLR, 2009. 7

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    Multisensor satellite image fusion and network- ing for all-weather environmental monitoring

    Ni-Bin Chang, Kaixu Bai, Sanaz Imen, Chi-Farn Chen, and Wei Gao. Multisensor satellite image fusion and network- ing for all-weather environmental monitoring. IEEE Systems Journal, 12(2):1341–1357, 2018. 1

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Remote sensing image scene classification meets deep learning: Challenges, methods, benchmarks, and op- portunities

    Gong Cheng, Xingxing Xie, Junwei Han, Lei Guo, and Gui- Song Xia. Remote sensing image scene classification meets deep learning: Challenges, methods, benchmarks, and op- portunities. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing , 13:3735–3756,

    work page

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Lobell, and Stefano Ermon

    Yezhen Cong, Samar Khanna, Chenlin Meng, Patrick Liu, Erik Rozi, Yutong He, Marshall Burke, David B. Lobell, and Stefano Ermon. SatMAE: Pre-training transformers for tem- poral and multi-spectral satellite imagery. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022. 2, 3, 7

    2022

  2. [10]

    Monitor- ing urban green infrastructure changes and impact on habi- tat connectivity using high-resolution satellite data

    Dorothy Furberg, Yifang Ban, and Ulla M ¨ortberg. Monitor- ing urban green infrastructure changes and impact on habi- tat connectivity using high-resolution satellite data. Remote Sensing, 12(18):3072, 2020. 1

    2020

  3. [11]

    Geospatial object detection in high resolution satellite im- ages based on multi-scale convolutional neural network

    Wei Guo, Wen Yang, Haijian Zhang, and Guang Hua. Geospatial object detection in high resolution satellite im- ages based on multi-scale convolutional neural network. Re- mote Sensing, 10(1):131, 2018. 1

    2018

  4. [12]

    Masked autoencoders are scal- able vision learners

    Kaiming He, Xinlei Chen, Saining Xie, Yanghao Li, Piotr Doll´ar, and Ross Girshick. Masked autoencoders are scal- able vision learners. In2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 15979– 15988, 2022. 3

    2022

  5. [13]

    Vernon Henderson, Adam Storeygard, and David N

    J. Vernon Henderson, Adam Storeygard, and David N. Weil. Measuring economic growth from outer space. American Economic Review, 102(2):994–1028, 2012. 2

    2012

  6. [14]

    Matthew Davis, David B

    Neal Jean, Marshall Burke, Michael Xie, W. Matthew Davis, David B. Lobell, and Stefano Ermon. Combining satellite imagery and machine learning to predict poverty. Science,

  7. [15]

    Satclip: Global, general- purpose location embeddings with satellite imagery

    Konstantin Klemmer, Esther Rolf, Caleb Robinson, Lester Mackey, and Marc Rußwurm. Satclip: Global, general- purpose location embeddings with satellite imagery. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.17179, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Separability analysis of the band combinations for land cover classification of satellite images

    Keerti Kulkarni and PA Vijaya. Separability analysis of the band combinations for land cover classification of satellite images. International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology, 69(8):138–144, 2021. 3

    2021

  9. [17]

    Kussul, M

    N. Kussul, M. Lavreniuk, S. Skakun, and A. Shelestov. Deep learning classification of land cover and crop types using re- mote sensing data. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 14:778–782, 2017. 1

    2017

  10. [18]

    Sentinel-2 for high resolution mapping of slope-based vegetation indices using machine learning by saga gis

    Polina Lemenkova. Sentinel-2 for high resolution mapping of slope-based vegetation indices using machine learning by saga gis. Transylvanian Review of Systematical and Ecolog- ical Research, 22(3):17–34, 2020. 3

    2020

  11. [19]

    Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows

    Ze Liu, Yutong Lin, Yue Cao, Han Hu, Yixuan Wei, Zheng Zhang, Stephen Lin, and Baining Guo. Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2021. 6

    2021

  12. [20]

    Deep transfer learning for land use and land cover classifica- tion: A comparative study

    Raoof Naushad, Tarunpreet Kaur, and Ebrahim Ghaderpour. Deep transfer learning for land use and land cover classifica- tion: A comparative study. Sensors, 21(23), 2021. 1

    2021

  13. [21]

    Monitoring agriculture areas with satellite im- ages and deep learning

    Thanh Tam Nguyen, Thanh Dat Hoang, Minh Tam Pham, Tuyet Trinh Vu, Thanh Hung Nguyen, Quyet-Thang Huynh, and Jun Jo. Monitoring agriculture areas with satellite im- ages and deep learning. Applied Soft Computing, 95:106565,

  14. [22]

    Rethinking transformers pre-training for multi- spectral satellite imagery

    Mubashir Noman, Muzammal Naseer, Hisham Cholakkal, Rao Muhammad Anwar, Salman Khan, and Fahad Shah- baz Khan. Rethinking transformers pre-training for multi- spectral satellite imagery. In CVPR, 2024. 2

    2024

  15. [23]

    Building footprint extraction and counting on very high-resolution satellite imagery using object detection deep learning frame- work

    Wahidya Nurkarim and Arie Wahyu Wijayanto. Building footprint extraction and counting on very high-resolution satellite imagery using object detection deep learning frame- work. Earth Science Informatics, 16(1):515–532, 2023. 1

    2023

  16. [24]

    Maxime Oquab, Timoth ´ee Darcet, Th´eo Moutakanni, Huy V . V o, Marc Szafraniec, Vasil Khalidov, Pierre Fernandez, Daniel HAZIZA, Francisco Massa, Alaaeldin El-Nouby, Mido Assran, Nicolas Ballas, Wojciech Galuba, Russell Howes, Po-Yao Huang, Shang-Wen Li, Ishan Misra, Michael ...

    2024

  17. [25]

    Sparsity information and reg- ularization in the horseshoe and other shrinkage priors.Elec- tronic Journal of Statistics, 11(2):5018 – 5051, 2017

    Juho Piironen and Aki Vehtari. Sparsity information and reg- ularization in the horseshoe and other shrinkage priors.Elec- tronic Journal of Statistics, 11(2):5018 – 5051, 2017. 7 9

    2017

  18. [26]

    A deep learning approach for population estimation from satellite imagery

    Caleb Robinson, Fred Hohman, and Bistra Dilkina. A deep learning approach for population estimation from satellite imagery. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGSPATIAL Work- shop on Geospatial Humanities, page 47–54, New York, NY , USA, 2017. Association for Computing Machinery. 2

    2017

  19. [27]

    A generalizable and accessible ap- proach to machine learning with global satellite imagery.Na- ture communications, 12(1):4392, 2021

    Esther Rolf, Jonathan Proctor, Tamma Carleton, Ian Bol- liger, Vaishaal Shankar, Miyabi Ishihara, Benjamin Recht, and Solomon Hsiang. A generalizable and accessible ap- proach to machine learning with global satellite imagery.Na- ture communications, 12(1):4392, 2021. 3

    2021

  20. [28]

    Kidsat: satellite imagery to map childhood poverty dataset and benchmark, 2024

    Makkunda Sharma, Fan Yang, Duy-Nhat V o, Esra Suel, Swapnil Mishra, Samir Bhatt, Oliver Fiala, William Rudgard, and Seth Flaxman. Kidsat: satellite imagery to map childhood poverty dataset and benchmark, 2024. 2, 3, 4, 5

    2024

  21. [29]

    Cloud-gan: Cloud re- moval for sentinel-2 imagery using a cyclic consistent gen- erative adversarial networks

    Praveer Singh and Nikos Komodakis. Cloud-gan: Cloud re- moval for sentinel-2 imagery using a cyclic consistent gen- erative adversarial networks. In IGARSS 2018-2018 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium , pages 1772–1775. IEEE, 2018. 1

    2018

  22. [30]

    Stan modeling language users guide and reference manual, version 2.35, 2024

    Stan Development Team. Stan modeling language users guide and reference manual, version 2.35, 2024. 7

    2024

  23. [31]

    Satellite imaging reveals in- creased proportion of population exposed to floods

    Beth Tellman, Jonathan A Sullivan, Catherine Kuhn, Albert J Kettner, Colin S Doyle, G Robert Brakenridge, Tyler A Er- ickson, and Daniel A Slayback. Satellite imaging reveals in- creased proportion of population exposed to floods. Nature, 596(7870):80–86, 2021. 3

    2021

  24. [32]

    Semantic seg- mentation of remote sensing image based on gan and fcn network model

    Liang Tian, Xiaorou Zhong, and Ming Chen. Semantic seg- mentation of remote sensing image based on gan and fcn network model. Scientific Programming, 2021(1):9491376,

    2021

  25. [33]

    Tiecke, Xianming Liu, Amy Zhang, Andreas Gros, Nan Li, Greg Yetman, Talip Kilic, Siobhan Murray, Brian Blankespoor, Espen B

    Tobias G. Tiecke, Xianming Liu, Amy Zhang, Andreas Gros, Nan Li, Greg Yetman, Talip Kilic, Siobhan Murray, Brian Blankespoor, Espen B. Prydz, and Hai-Anh H. Dang. Map- ping the world population one building at a time. ArXiv, abs/1712.05839, 2017. 2

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Wanyan, S

    X. Wanyan, S. Seneviratne, S. Shen, and M. Kirley. Extend- ing global-local view alignment for self-supervised learn- ing with remote sensing imagery. In 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), pages 2443–2453, Los Alamitos, CA, U...

    2024

  27. [35]

    Burke, D

    Sang Michael Xie, Neal Jean, M. Burke, D. Lobell, and Ste- fano Ermon. Transfer learning from deep features for remote sensing and poverty mapping. In AAAI Conference on Arti- ficial Intelligence, 2015. 2

    2015

  28. [36]

    Everitt, Qian Du, Bin Luo, and Jo- celyn Chanussot

    Chenghai Yang, James H. Everitt, Qian Du, Bin Luo, and Jo- celyn Chanussot. Using high-resolution airborne and satel- lite imagery to assess crop growth and yield variability for precision agriculture. Proceedings of the IEEE, 101(3):582– 592, 2013. 1

    2013

  29. [37]

    Using publicly available satellite imagery and deep learning to understand economic well-being in africa

    Christopher Yeh, Anthony Perez, Anne Driscoll, George Az- zari, Zhongyi Tang, David Lobell, Stefano Ermon, and Mar- shall Burke. Using publicly available satellite imagery and deep learning to understand economic well-being in africa. Nature communications, 11(1):2583, 2020. 2

    2020

  30. [38]

    Using publicly available satellite imagery and deep learning to understand economic well-being in africa

    Christopher Yeh, Anthony Perez, Anne Driscoll, George Az- zari, Zhongyi Tang, David Lobell, Stefano Ermon, and Mar- shall Burke. Using publicly available satellite imagery and deep learning to understand economic well-being in africa. Nature communications, 11(1):2583, 2020. 1

    2020

  31. [39]

    Deep gaussian process for crop yield pre- diction based on remote sensing data

    Jiaxuan You, Xiaocheng Li, Melvin Low, David Lobell, and Stefano Ermon. Deep gaussian process for crop yield pre- diction based on remote sensing data. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, page 4559–4565. AAAI Press, 2017. 1

    2017

  32. [40]

    Band selection in sentinel-2 satellite for agriculture applications

    Tianxiang Zhang, Jinya Su, Cunjia Liu, Wen-Hua Chen, Hui Liu, and Guohai Liu. Band selection in sentinel-2 satellite for agriculture applications. In 2017 23rd International Con- ference on Automation and Computing (ICAC) , pages 1–6,

    2017

  33. [41]

    Cloud removal using multimodal gan with adversar- ial consistency loss

    Yunpu Zhao, Shikun Shen, Jiarui Hu, Yinglong Li, and Jun Pan. Cloud removal using multimodal gan with adversar- ial consistency loss. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 19:1–5, 2021. 1

    2021

  34. [42]

    Deepdpm: Dynamic population mapping via deep neural network

    Zefang Zong, Jie Feng, Kechun Liu, Hongzhi Shi, and Yong Li. Deepdpm: Dynamic population mapping via deep neural network. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, pages 1294–1301, 2019. 3 10 Uncertainty-Aware Regression for Socio-Economic Estimation vi...

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.