Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 121 references

Deep Self-Supervised Disturbance Mapping with the OPERA Sentinel-1 Radiometric Terrain Corrected SAR Backscatter Product

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single self-supervised vision transformer, trained with no labels on near-global OPERA Sentinel-1 backscatter, delineates landslides, wildfires, and floods with F1 scores above 0.6, and beats both an RNN baseline and the classical…

desk verdict A solid, well-scoped demo of a self-supervised ViT for SAR disturbance mapping that deserves review; the headline generality claim is a bit ahead of the evidence, but the core comparison is credible. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09129 v2 pith:XA727XAU submitted 2025-01-15 cs.CV cs.LGeess.IV

Harris Hardiman-Mostow , Charles Marshak , Alexander L. Handwerger This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.LGeess.IV
keywords self-supervisiontransformerdisturbancemappingdamagesyntheticapertureradarSentinel-1OPERARTC-S1Mahalanobisdistance
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 single vision transformer, trained with no labels on about 2.5 million sequences of near-global OPERA Sentinel-1 backscatter, can map new land-surface disturbances by predicting the normal backscatter range at each pixel and flagging large deviations. The model learns to forecast the per-pixel mean and standard deviation of the next image from 2 to 10 previous acquisitions, and converts the gap into a Mahalanobis distance measured in standard deviations. On three disasters - a landslide in Papua New Guinea, wildfires in Chile, and flooding in Bangladesh - the same model, used without fine-tuning, beats a recurrent-network baseline and the classical log-ratio detector on every event, with F1 scores above 0.6 and precision-recall AUC above 0.65. If true, this means operational, near-global disturbance alerts could be generated from SAR alone, without the labor of building labeled training sets.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a probabilistic per-pixel forecast $f_\theta(x_1,\dots,x_T) = (\mu_{T+1}, \sigma_{T+1})$ trained by minimizing the Gaussian negative log-likelihood at Eq. (3), which assumes a diagonal covariance matrix across pixels and independent polarizations after a logit transform and despeckling. The disturbance metric is then the one-dimensional Mahalanobis distance $d_p = |x_{T+1,p} - \mu_p| / \sigma_p$ per polarization, combined by taking the maximum over VV and VH. The transformer uses 16 by 16 input patches, 8 by 8 patches, learned spatiotemporal embeddings, and is swept across larger scenes with a stride and averaging to suppress edge artifacts. This machinery converts an unlabeled time series of images into a thresholdable, interpretable map whose values are read as standard deviations from the expected backscatter.

What would settle it

Take a long undisturbed RTC-S1 time series over a stable area, compute the model's predicted $\sigma$ for each pixel, and compare it with the empirical standard deviation of the actual baseline acquisitions at that pixel; if the predicted-to-empirical ratio drifts away from 1 across land-cover types, the uniform 4 to 7 standard deviation threshold window is a calibration artifact and the metric's probabilistic reading fails even if the ranking of methods survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using the analysis-ready OPERA RTC-S1 backscatter product, the paper trains a roughly 3.3 million parameter, patch-based vision transformer in a fully self-supervised way: the supervision signal is the next image's pixel values themselves. At inference, the transformer takes the pre-event stack and outputs $\mu_p$ and $\sigma_p$ for each polarization; the disturbance metric $d_p = |x_{T+1,p} - \mu_p| / \sigma_p$ is interpreted as the number of estimated standard deviations the new acquisition lies from the expected value, with $d = \max_p d_p$ over the VV and VH channels. Thresholding this metric yields binary disturbance maps. Across the three validation events the transformer reaches precision-recall AUC values of 0.732, 0.680, and 0.754, and maximum F1 scores of 0.769, 0.645, and 0.701, all above the RNN and log-ratio baselines, with optimal thresholds consistently in the 4 to 7 standard deviation range.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the transformer's predicted per-pixel standard deviation is accurate enough that a pixel flagged as four to seven standard deviations from the mean really is disturbed, rather than simply belonging to a land-cover type whose backscatter variability the model misjudges.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single model, fixed at one threshold near 5 standard deviations, can produce F1 scores around 0.6 or better on landslide, wildfire, and flood delineation without retraining or per-event threshold tuning.
  • Each new Sentinel-1 acquisition can trigger an automatic disturbance map once a short baseline of 4 to 10 images exists, enabling disaster-response products within one repeat cycle.
  • The approach transfers to forthcoming sensors such as NISAR's L-band radar, where no large labeled corpus exists, because training needs only unlabeled backscatter sequences.
  • The results position the self-supervised transformer metric ahead of the classical log-ratio detector for analysis-ready SAR backscatter disturbance mapping.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not calibrate its predicted variances against empirical scatter; adding such a calibration could turn the global threshold story into a per-land-cover threshold, reducing false alarms at the cost of some universality.
  • Because the metric takes the maximum over VV and VH, the polarization with larger intrinsic backscatter variability tends to dominate; single-polarization ablations would show where the gain actually comes from.
  • All three validation events are abrupt and high-intensity, so the same machinery applied to gradual changes such as logging or drought stress would need longer baselines and possibly a trend-aware model.
  • A direct next test is to run the model over a large archive of known, optically mapped events and check whether the operating threshold distribution stays inside the 4 to 7 standard deviation window observed here.
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 self-supervised vision transformer trained on OPERA RTC-S1 backscatter to predict per-pixel Gaussian parameters for the next acquisition from a sequence of baseline images. The disturbance metric is the Mahalanobis distance d = max_p |x_p - mu_p| / sigma_p, which is thresholded to produce binary disturbance maps. The method is evaluated on three recent natural disasters (a landslide in Papua New Guinea, wildfires in Chile, and flooding in Bangladesh) against external validation maps, and compared with an RNN (GRU) and the classical log-ratio method. Reported PR AUC and F1 scores show the transformer achieving the highest values on all three events. The paper also presents ablation studies on input/patch size, model size, and learning rate.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a useful step toward label-free, near-global SAR disturbance monitoring, especially in anticipation of NISAR. The authors provide public data and code, use a new analysis-ready product (OPERA RTC-S1), and demonstrate cross-event deployment of a single model without fine-tuning. The main strengths are the large-scale self-supervised training, the simple probabilistic metric formulation, and the three-event external evaluation with ablation experiments. The significance is currently tempered by the small number of events, the lack of uncertainty quantification, and the absence of a calibration check for the predicted variance, which is central to the operational threshold recommendation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-B and Fig. 15] The interpretation of d as a standard-deviation score and the operational recommendation tau ~= 5 assume that the predicted per-pixel sigma is calibrated for undisturbed pixels. Equation (3) minimizes a Gaussian negative log-likelihood but does not guarantee calibration: sigma can be systematically over- or under-estimated. The paper does not report any calibration check (e.g., PIT histograms, empirical coverage of prediction intervals, or a comparison of normalized residuals (x - mu)/sigma on undisturbed pixels to a standard normal). If sigma is biased, the reported 4-7 SD consistency in Fig. 15 may be an artifact and the threshold cannot be transferred across environments. Please add a calibration analysis or substantially soften the probabilistic and operational claims.
  2. [Section VI-A and Table I] The claim that the transformer 'consistently outperforms' the RNN is based on single PR AUC values per event. The differences are modest (e.g., flood: 0.754 vs. 0.705) and no confidence intervals, bootstrap replicates, or significance tests are given. With only three events, the possibility that these differences are within sampling noise cannot be ruled out. Provide uncertainty quantification (e.g., bootstrap or confidence intervals) or temper the claim accordingly.
  3. [Section V-C] The Bangladesh flood ground truth is derived from a Sentinel-1 image by UNOSAT, and the post-event RTC-S1 image used for evaluation is only one day later. This makes the flood evaluation partly circular for a Sentinel-1-based method, because the validation labels are not independent of the sensor modality. The paper's limitation discussion (Section VII) states that validation maps are optical, which is inaccurate for the flood. Please either use an independently derived label set for the flood or analyze it separately as a SAR-consistent label check.
  4. [Section VI-A and III-B] No simple empirical z-score baseline is included. A per-pixel mean and standard deviation computed from the baseline images (as in DIST-HLS) would directly test whether the transformer's learned distribution adds value beyond sample statistics. Adding such a baseline is important for supporting the claim that the deep model is necessary; if the empirical z-score performs comparably, the paper's core motivation weakens.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III-B vs. VI-E] The text states 'thresholds tau in the range of 3-5 visually suitable' in Section III-B, but Fig. 15 shows consistency in the 4-7 SD range; please reconcile these numbers.
  2. [Section III-D] The stride of 4 for fire and flood inference is said to be described in Section VI, but Section VI does not mention the stride; please specify the inference stride and any effects on the metrics.
  3. [Fig. 5 caption] The 'ground truth' landslide map is manually mapped by the authors, unlike the CEMS/UNOSAT maps; please state this clearly in the figure caption and discuss any bias this may introduce.
  4. [Section IV-A] The training set is described as 2,511,348 sequences of 11 images, but the temporal coverage and potential overlap among sequences are not specified; a sentence on the sampling strategy would aid reproducibility.
  5. [Section VII] The statement that 'the consistently high performance of the transformer indicates potential as a global disturbance model' is stronger than what three events can support; please soften it.
  6. [Throughout] There are minor typesetting issues: 'heigh' in Section III-C, missing spaces around 'T + 1in' in Section III-A, and the footnote marker in Section II-A should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the headline results are an external benchmark, and the cited precedents are not by the present authors.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical: a self-supervised vision transformer trained without labels on OPERA RTC-S1 estimates per-pixel Gaussian parameters from baseline images, and the resulting Mahalanobis distance d=|x-mu|/sigma outperforms an RNN and log-ratio on three externally validated disaster maps. The training loss (Eq. 3) is a negative log-likelihood on unlabeled imagery; the evaluation labels come from external sources (UNOSAT, Copernicus EMS, and a manual PlanetScope delineation), not from the model's own outputs. PR AUC, the headline metric, is threshold-independent, so it does not depend on the tau near 5 selection. The cited method precedents [11] are external prior work, not self-citations, and the paper's only self-references are data and code repositories that are not load-bearing. The skeptic's calibration concern is a real statistical risk: Eq. (3) does not guarantee that predicted sigma is calibrated, and the tail-probability statement that dp > 3 occurs less than 1% of the time is an unverified normality assumption. However, this is an assumption and validity issue, not a circularity: the metric is defined as a standardized residual, and the paper does not claim that Eq. (3) plus evaluation labels force the result by construction. The threshold near 5 is in-sample evidence from the same three events, explicitly flagged as requiring further validation; this is model-selection caution, not circular derivation. No step in the derivation chain reduces to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is an empirical machine-learning paper, so the central claim rests on learned parameters and a chain of modeling and data assumptions rather than on a closed-form derivation. The largest unpaid inputs are the Gaussian/logit distributional assumptions, the assumption that the training set is predominantly nominal, the accuracy of external validation maps, and the selection of hyperparameters and thresholds using the same events that are later reported as headline results.

free parameters (4)
  • Transformer network weights theta = Approximately 3.3 million parameters learned on 2,511,348 RTC-S1 sequences.
    The central claim depends on these trained parameters; they are fit to self-supervised data, not to event labels.
  • Model hyperparameters (input size, patch size, width, depth, learning rate, batch, epochs) = 16x16 input, 8x8 patch, FF 768, 4 layers, 4 heads, LR 1e-4, batch 256, 50 epochs.
    Chosen via ablation experiments measured on the same three validation events (Tables II-V), so headline scores partly reflect selection on the evaluation set.
  • Disturbance threshold tau = Per-event optimal tau from F1 on ground truth; recommended global tau of about 5.
    Binary F1 maps use the ground-truth-optimal threshold, and the threshold-consistency claim in Fig. 15 is derived from the same three events.
  • Despeckling and total variation denoising parameters = Not specified beyond references [107], [108].
    Preprocessing affects the metric values and requires unspecified lambda and iteration choices to reproduce.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Logit-transformed SAR backscatter at each pixel and polarization follows a normal distribution at the prediction time.
    The negative log-likelihood in Eq. (3) assumes a Gaussian with diagonal covariance; no calibration check is provided.
  • domain assumption Pixels and the two polarizations are conditionally independent in the loss.
    Stated in Section III-A as needed to factorize the negative log-likelihood and to combine channels by taking the maximum.
  • domain assumption The training corpus represents predominantly nominal land-surface conditions, so disturbances are rare enough not to inflate the predicted standard deviation.
    The model is trained on random RTC-S1 sequences without disturbance labels; if abrupt events are common in training, the loss will absorb them into larger sigma, reducing sensitivity.
  • domain assumption The last pre-event image in each evaluation scene contains no disturbance.
    Assumption (1) in Section VI-A is used to measure false positives; any real unrelated change in that image is counted as an error.
  • domain assumption External damage maps are valid ground truth for SAR-based disturbance.
    Optical VHR maps for the landslide and fire and a Sentinel-1-derived UNOSAT map for the flood are treated as truth, despite modality differences acknowledged in Sections V and VII.
  • domain assumption OPERA RTC-S1 is correctly radiometrically terrain corrected and free of significant artifacts.
    The method accepts the product as analysis-ready per [23]-[25]; residual layover, shadow, or calibration errors would appear as apparent disturbances.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deep Self-Supervised Disturbance Mapping with the OPERA Sentinel-1 Radiometric Terrain Corrected SAR Backscatter Product." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XA727XAU

@misc{pith2026250109129,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deep Self-Supervised Disturbance Mapping with the OPERA Sentinel-1 Radiometric Terrain Corrected SAR Backscatter Product},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XA727XAU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09129}
}
read the original abstract

Mapping land surface disturbances supports disaster response, resource and ecosystem management, and climate adaptation efforts. Synthetic aperture radar (SAR) is an invaluable tool for disturbance mapping, providing consistent time-series images of the ground regardless of weather or illumination conditions. Despite SAR's potential for disturbance mapping, processing SAR data to an analysis-ready format requires expertise and significant compute resources, particularly for large-scale global analysis. In October 2023, NASA's Observational Products for End-Users from Remote Sensing Analysis (OPERA) project released the near-global Radiometric Terrain Corrected SAR backscatter from Sentinel-1 (RTC-S1) dataset, providing publicly available, analysis-ready SAR imagery. In this work, we utilize this new dataset to systematically analyze land surface disturbances. As labeling SAR data is often prohibitively time-consuming, we train a self-supervised vision transformer - which requires no labels to train - on OPERA RTC-S1 data to estimate a per-pixel distribution from the set of baseline imagery and assess disturbances when there is significant deviation from the modeled distribution. To test our model's capability and generality, we evaluate three different natural disasters - which represent high-intensity, abrupt disturbances - from three different regions of the world. Across events, our approach yields high quality delineations: F1 scores exceeding 0.6 and Areas Under the Precision-Recall Curve exceeding 0.65, consistently outperforming existing SAR disturbance methods. Our findings suggest that a self-supervised vision transformer is well-suited for global disturbance mapping and can be a valuable tool for operational, near-global disturbance monitoring, particularly when labeled data does not exist.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09129 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Visualization of the disturbance metric and how it is computed for single channel (VV) time-series. This example [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A flow chart illustrating the transformer metric proposed in this paper. The metric is computed for dual polarization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Landsat 8 and 9 false color imagery (bands 6, 5, 3) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: Pre-landslide SAR imagery (VV), May 22 2024. Middle: Post-landslide SAR imagery (VV), June 3 2024. The landslide is seen in the bottom right corner. Right: Target (ground truth) damage map overlaid on ESRI Composite World Imagery [99]. The damaged area is shown i…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: Pre-fire SAR imagery (VH), January 23 2024. Middle: Post-fire SAR imagery (VH), February 28 2024. Right: Target (ground truth) damage map from Copernicus overlaid on ESRI World Imagery [99]. The damaged areas are shown in yellow. Note that the ESRI world imagery …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: Pre-flooding SAR imagery (VH), May 18 2024. Middle: Post-flooding SAR imagery (VH), July 5 2024. The flooding is seen via the reduction of the backscatter all around the Baleshwari River. Right: Target (ground truth) damage map from UNOSAT, overlaid on ESRI World…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Disturbance metrics, damage maps, and ground truth data from the landslide in Papua New Guinea. Each row corresponds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: PR curves for the landslide scene. The transformer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: PR curves for the Chilean fire scene. The transformer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Disturbance metrics, damage maps, and ground truth data from the fire in Chile. Each row corresponds to a different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Disturbance metrics, damage maps, and ground truth data from the flooding in Bangladesh. Each row corresponds to a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: F1 score vs thresholds for the transformer metric. Effective thresholds are consistent across all three scenes and lie in the range of 4-7 standard deviations. This indicates some generality in the model and is evidence toward operational effectiveness, where the thre…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: F1 score vs. threshold for each method on the Papua New Guinea landslide. The threshold percentage is computed with respect to the maximum value (SD or dB) in the scene in order to compare all methods side-by-side. Not only does the transformer achieve the highest F1 …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

121 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Long-term perspective on wildfires in the western usa,

    J. R. Marlon, P. J. Bartlein, D. G. Gavin, C. J. Long, R. S. Anderson, C. E. Briles, K. J. Brown, D. Colombaroli, D. J. Hallett, M. J. Power et al., “Long-term perspective on wildfires in the western usa,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 109, no. 9, pp. E535–E543, 2012

    2012

  2. [2]

    Landslide erosion coupled to tectonics and river incision,

    I. J. Larsen and D. R. Montgomery, “Landslide erosion coupled to tectonics and river incision,” Nature Geoscience , vol. 5, no. 7, pp. 468–473, 2012

    2012

  3. [3]

    Global glacial isostasy and the surface of the ice-age earth: the ice-5g (vm2) model and grace,

    W. R. Peltier, “Global glacial isostasy and the surface of the ice-age earth: the ice-5g (vm2) model and grace,” Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 111–149, 2004

    2004

  4. [4]

    Classifying drivers of global forest loss,

    P. G. Curtis, C. M. Slay, N. L. Harris, A. Tyukavina, and M. C. Hansen, “Classifying drivers of global forest loss,” Science, vol. 361, no. 6407, pp. 1108–1111, 2018

    2018

  5. [5]

    High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change,

    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. Loveland et al. , “High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change,” science, vol. 342, no. 6160, pp. 850–853, 2013

    2013

  6. [6]

    Ten ways remote sensing can contribute to conservation,

    R. A. Rose, D. Byler, J. R. Eastman, E. Fleishman, G. Geller, S. Goetz, L. Guild, H. Hamilton, M. Hansen, R. Headley et al., “Ten ways remote sensing can contribute to conservation,” Conservation Biology, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 350–359, 2015

    2015

  7. [7]

    The impacts of climate change on terrestrial earth surface systems,

    J. Knight and S. Harrison, “The impacts of climate change on terrestrial earth surface systems,” Nature Climate Change , vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 24– 29, 2013

    2013

  8. [8]

    Assessing sustainable development prospects through remote sensing: A review,

    R. Avtar, A. A. Komolafe, A. Kouser, D. Singh, A. P. Yunus, J. Dou, P. Kumar, R. D. Gupta, B. A. Johnson, H. V . T. Minhet al., “Assessing sustainable development prospects through remote sensing: A review,” Remote sensing applications: Society and environment , vol. 20, p. 100402, 2020

    2020

Show all 121 references
  1. [9]

    Human population growth and global land-use/cover change,

    W. B. Meyer and B. L. Turner, “Human population growth and global land-use/cover change,” Annual review of ecology and systematics , pp. 39–61, 1992

    1992

  2. [11]

    Deep learning-based damage mapping with insar coherence time series,

    O. L. Stephenson, T. K ¨ohne, E. Zhan, B. E. Cahill, S.-H. Yun, Z. E. Ross, and M. Simons, “Deep learning-based damage mapping with insar coherence time series,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 60, pp. 1–17, 2021

    2021

  3. [12]

    Urban flood mapping with bitemporal multispectral imagery via a self-supervised learning framework,

    B. Peng, Q. Huang, J. V ongkusolkit, S. Gao, D. B. Wright, Z. N. Fang, and Y . Qiang, “Urban flood mapping with bitemporal multispectral imagery via a self-supervised learning framework,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing , vol. 1...

    2001

  4. [13]

    Sen1floods11: a georeferenced dataset to train and test deep learning flood algorithms for sentinel-1,

    D. Bonafilia, B. Tellman, T. Anderson, and E. Issenberg, “Sen1floods11: a georeferenced dataset to train and test deep learning flood algorithms for sentinel-1,” in 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), 2020, pp. 835–845

    2020

  5. [14]

    Generating landslide density heatmaps for rapid detection using open-access satellite radar data in google earth engine,

    A. L. Handwerger, M.-H. Huang, S. Y . Jones, P. Amatya, H. R. Kerner, and D. B. Kirschbaum, “Generating landslide density heatmaps for rapid detection using open-access satellite radar data in google earth engine,” Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences , vol. 22, no. 3, pp...

    2022

  6. [15]

    Landslide mapping using object-based image analysis and open source tools,

    P. Amatya, D. Kirschbaum, T. Stanley, and H. Tanyas, “Landslide mapping using object-based image analysis and open source tools,” Engineering geology, vol. 282, p. 106000, 2021

    2021

  7. [16]

    Near real-time wildfire progression monitoring with sentinel-1 sar time series and deep learning,

    Y . Ban, P. Zhang, A. Nascetti, A. R. Bevington, and M. A. Wulder, “Near real-time wildfire progression monitoring with sentinel-1 sar time series and deep learning,” Scientific reports , vol. 10, no. 1, p. 1322, 2020

    2020

  8. [17]

    Change detection techniques for ers- 1 sar data,

    E. J. Rignot and J. J. Van Zyl, “Change detection techniques for ers- 1 sar data,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote sensing , vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 896–906, 1993

    1993

  9. [18]

    Synthetic aperture radar interferometry,

    P. A. Rosen, S. Hensley, I. R. Joughin, F. K. Li, S. N. Madsen, E. Ro- driguez, and R. M. Goldstein, “Synthetic aperture radar interferometry,” Proceedings of the IEEE , vol. 88, no. 3, pp. 333–382, 2000

    2000

  10. [19]

    How satellite insar has grown from opportunistic science to routine monitoring over the last decade,

    J. Biggs and T. J. Wright, “How satellite insar has grown from opportunistic science to routine monitoring over the last decade,” Nature Communications, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 3863, 2020

    2020

  11. [20]

    Z. Han, C. Zhang, L. Gao, Z. Zeng, B. Zhang, and P. M. Atkinson, “Spatio-temporal multi-level attention crop mapping method using SUBMITTED TO IEEE JOURNAL OF SELECTED TOPICS IN APPLIED EARTH OBSERV ATIONS AND REMOTE SENSING 17 time-series sar imagery,” ISPRS Journal of Photog...

    2023

  12. [21]

    Evaluation of coherent and incoherent landslide detection methods based on synthetic aperture radar for rapid response: A case study for the 2018 hokkaido landslides,

    J. Jung and S.-H. Yun, “Evaluation of coherent and incoherent landslide detection methods based on synthetic aperture radar for rapid response: A case study for the 2018 hokkaido landslides,” Remote Sensing , vol. 12, no. 2, p. 265, 2020

    2018

  13. [22]

    Damage-mapping algorithm based on coherence model using multitemporal polarimetric– interferometric sar data,

    J. Jung, S.-H. Yun, D.-j. Kim, and M. Lavalle, “Damage-mapping algorithm based on coherence model using multitemporal polarimetric– interferometric sar data,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Re- mote Sensing, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 1520–1532, 2017

    2017

  14. [23]

    OPERA Product Validation Document v1.5,

    M. G. Bato, D. Bekaert, B. Chapman, M. Hansen, J. W. Jones, J. W. Kim, and Others, “OPERA Product Validation Document v1.5,” https: //t.ly/CrUq, 2023

    2023

  15. [24]

    Flattening gamma: Radiometric terrain correction for sar imagery,

    D. Small, “Flattening gamma: Radiometric terrain correction for sar imagery,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 49, no. 8, pp. 3081–3093, 2011

    2011

  16. [25]

    The opera radiometric terrain corrected sar backscatter from sentinel-1 (rtc- s1) product,

    G. H. Shiroma, H. Fattahi, F. Meyer, S. Jeong, L. Cinquini, S. Collins, B. Chapman, S. K. Chan, A. L. Handwerger, and D. Bekaert, “The opera radiometric terrain corrected sar backscatter from sentinel-1 (rtc- s1) product,” in IGARSS 2023-2023 IEEE International Geoscience and ...

    2023

  17. [26]

    I. H. Woodhouse, Introduction to microwave remote sensing . CRC press, 2017

    2017

  18. [27]

    Oliver and S

    C. Oliver and S. Quegan, Understanding synthetic aperture radar images. SciTech Publishing, 2004

    2004

  19. [28]

    Harmonizing sar and optical data to map surface water extent: A deep learning approach,

    K. Venkataramani, C. Z. Marshak, D. Bekaert, M. Simard, M. Denbina, A. L. Handwerger, and S. Chan, “Harmonizing sar and optical data to map surface water extent: A deep learning approach,” in IGARSS 2023- 2023 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium . IEEE, ...

    2023

  20. [29]

    Improving landslide detection on sar data through deep learning,

    L. Nava, O. Monserrat, and F. Catani, “Improving landslide detection on sar data through deep learning,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, vol. 19, pp. 1–5, 2021

    2021

  21. [30]

    Sentinel-1 sar-based globally distributed landslide detection by deep neural networks,

    L. Nava, A. C. Mondini, K. Bhuyan, C. Fang, O. Monserrat, A. Novel- lino, and F. Catani, “Sentinel-1 sar-based globally distributed landslide detection by deep neural networks,” EarthArXiv, 2024

    2024

  22. [31]

    A spatial-temporal attention-based method and a new dataset for remote sensing image change detection,

    H. Chen and Z. Shi, “A spatial-temporal attention-based method and a new dataset for remote sensing image change detection,” Remote Sensing , vol. 12, no. 10, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/12/10/1662

    2020

  23. [32]

    Fully convolutional networks for multisource building extraction from an open aerial and satellite imagery data set,

    S. Ji, S. Wei, and M. Lu, “Fully convolutional networks for multisource building extraction from an open aerial and satellite imagery data set,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 574–586, 2019

    2019

  24. [33]

    HLS Burn Scars Dataset – Hugging Face,

    IBM and NASA, “HLS Burn Scars Dataset – Hugging Face,” https://huggingface.co/datasets/ibm-nasa-geospatial/hls burn scars, 2024, [Online; accessed 16-Oct-2024]

    2024

  25. [34]

    Sen12-flood: a sar and multispectral dataset for flood detection,

    C. Rambour, N. Audebert, E. Koeniguer, B. Le Saux, M. Crucianu, and M. Datcu, “Sen12-flood: a sar and multispectral dataset for flood detection,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://dx.doi.org/10. 21227/w6xz-s898

    2020

  26. [35]

    Changemamba: Remote sensing change detection with spatio-temporal state space model,

    H. Chen, J. Song, C. Han, J. Xia, and N. Yokoya, “Changemamba: Remote sensing change detection with spatio-temporal state space model,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , 2024

    2024

  27. [36]

    Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners,

    K. He, X. Chen, S. Xie, Y . Li, P. Doll ´ar, and R. Girshick, “Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2022, pp. 16 000–16 009

    2022

  28. [37]

    Seasonal contrast: Unsupervised pre-training from uncurated remote sensing data,

    O. Manas, A. Lacoste, X. Gir ´o-i Nieto, D. Vazquez, and P. Rodriguez, “Seasonal contrast: Unsupervised pre-training from uncurated remote sensing data,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Confer- ence on Computer Vision , 2021, pp. 9414–9423

    2021

  29. [38]

    A simple frame- work for contrastive learning of visual representations,

    T. Chen, S. Kornblith, M. Norouzi, and G. Hinton, “A simple frame- work for contrastive learning of visual representations,” inInternational conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2020, pp. 1597–1607

    2020

  30. [39]

    D. E. Rumelhart, G. E. Hinton, and R. J. Williams, “Learning internal representations by error propagation, parallel distributed processing, explorations in the microstructure of cognition, ed. de rumelhart and j. mcclelland. vol. 1. 1986,” Biometrika, vol. 71, no. 599-607, p. 6, 1986

    1986

  31. [40]

    Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks,

    I. Sutskever, “Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.3215 , 2014

    2014 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, “Attention is all you need,” Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems , 2017

    2017

  33. [42]

    Language models are few-shot learners,

    T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. D. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell, S. Agarwal, A. Herbert-V oss, G. Krueger, T. Henighan, R. Child, A. Ramesh, D. Ziegler, J. Wu, C. Winter, C. Hesse, M. Chen, E. Sigler, M. Litwin, S. Gray, B. Ch...

    2020

  34. [43]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,

    A. Dosovitskiy, L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, D. Weissenborn, 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,” in International Conference on Learning Representations , 2020

    2020

  35. [44]

    Satmae: Pre-training transformers for temporal and multi-spectral satellite imagery,

    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 , vol. 35, pp. 197–211, 2022

    2022

  36. [45]

    Lightweight, pre-trained transformers for remote sensing timeseries,

    G. Tseng, R. Cartuyvels, I. Zvonkov, M. Purohit, D. Rolnick, and H. Kerner, “Lightweight, pre-trained transformers for remote sensing timeseries,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.14065 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  37. [46]

    UNOSAT via humanitarian data ex- change, https://data.humdata.org/dataset/ satellite-detected-water-extents-between-4-11-july-2024-in-bangladesh

    2024

  38. [47]

    Copernicus EMS Rapid Mapping,

    Copernicus Emergency Management Service, “Copernicus EMS Rapid Mapping,” https://rapidmapping.emergency.copernicus.eu/, 2024, [On- line; accessed 16-Oct-2024]

    2024

  39. [48]

    dist-s1-events – GitHub repository,

    OPERA Cal/Val Team, “dist-s1-events – GitHub repository,” https: //github.com/OPERA-Cal-Val/dist-s1-events, 2024, [Online; accessed 16-Oct-2024]

    2024

  40. [49]

    M. J. Canty, Image analysis, classification and change detection in remote sensing: with algorithms for Python . Crc Press, 2019

    2019

  41. [50]

    Deep Learning in Remote Sensing: A Comprehensive Review and List of Resources,

    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, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 8–36, 2017

    2017

  42. [51]

    Sentinel-1 Acquisition Maps,

    Alaska Satellite Facility (ASF), “Sentinel-1 Acquisition Maps,” https: //asf.alaska.edu/daac/sentinel-1-acquisition-maps/, 2024, [Online; ac- cessed 16-Oct-2024]

    2024

  43. [52]

    Opera dist product - algorithm theoretical basis document,

    M. Hansen, A. Pickens, and Z. Song, “Opera dist product - algorithm theoretical basis document,” https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/documents/1835/ OPERA DIST ATBD V1.pdf, 2024

    2024

  44. [53]

    Mapping the spatial-temporal variability of tropical forests by alos-2 l-band sar big data analysis,

    C. N. Koyama, M. Watanabe, M. Hayashi, T. Ogawa, and M. Shimada, “Mapping the spatial-temporal variability of tropical forests by alos-2 l-band sar big data analysis,” Remote Sensing of Environment , vol. 233, p. 111372, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com...

    2019

  45. [54]

    Forest disturbance alerts for the congo basin using sentinel-1,

    J. Reiche, A. Mullissa, B. Slagter, Y . Gou, N.-E. Tsendbazar, C. Odongo-Braun, A. V ollrath, M. J. Weisse, F. Stolle, A. Pickens et al., “Forest disturbance alerts for the congo basin using sentinel-1,” Environmental Research Letters, vol. 16, no. 2, p. 024005, 2021

    2021

  46. [55]

    Characterizing tropical forest cover loss using dense sentinel-1 data and active fire alerts,

    J. Reiche, R. Verhoeven, J. Verbesselt, E. Hamunyela, N. Wielaard, and M. Herold, “Characterizing tropical forest cover loss using dense sentinel-1 data and active fire alerts,” Remote Sensing, vol. 10, no. 5,

  47. [56]

    How to Compare Noisy Patches? Patch Similarity beyond Gaussian Noise,

    C.-A. Deledalle, L. Denis, and F. Tupin, “How to Compare Noisy Patches? Patch Similarity beyond Gaussian Noise,” International jour- nal of computer vision , vol. 99, pp. 86–102, 2012

    2012

  48. [57]

    War related building damage assessment in kyiv, ukraine, using sentinel-1 radar and sentinel-2 optical images,

    Y . Aimaiti, C. Sanon, M. Koch, L. G. Baise, and B. Moaveni, “War related building damage assessment in kyiv, ukraine, using sentinel-1 radar and sentinel-2 optical images,” Remote Sensing, vol. 14, no. 24, p. 6239, 2022

    2022

  49. [58]

    Augmentation of wrf-hydro to simu- late overland-flow-and streamflow-generated debris flow susceptibility in burn scars,

    C. Li, A. L. Handwerger, J. Wang, W. Yu, X. Li, N. J. Finnegan, Y . Xie, G. Buscarnera, and D. E. Horton, “Augmentation of wrf-hydro to simu- late overland-flow-and streamflow-generated debris flow susceptibility in burn scars,” Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences , vol....

    2022

  50. [59]

    Sentinel-1 sar amplitude imagery for rapid landslide detection,

    A. C. Mondini, M. Santangelo, M. Rocchetti, E. Rossetto, A. Manconi, and O. Monserrat, “Sentinel-1 sar amplitude imagery for rapid landslide detection,” Remote sensing, vol. 11, no. 7, p. 760, 2019

    2019

  51. [60]

    Landslide failures detection and mapping using syn- thetic aperture radar: Past, present and future,

    A. C. Mondini, F. Guzzetti, K.-T. Chang, O. Monserrat, T. R. Martha, and A. Manconi, “Landslide failures detection and mapping using syn- thetic aperture radar: Past, present and future,” Earth-Science Reviews, vol. 216, p. 103574, 2021

    2021

  52. [61]

    Detecting coseismic landslides in gee using machine learning algorithms on combined optical and radar imagery,

    S. Peters, J. Liu, G. Keppel, A. Wendleder, and P. Xu, “Detecting coseismic landslides in gee using machine learning algorithms on combined optical and radar imagery,” Remote Sensing, vol. 16, no. 10, p. 1722, 2024. SUBMITTED TO IEEE JOURNAL OF SELECTED TOPICS IN APPLIED EARTH...

    2024

  53. [62]

    Ratio-based Multitemporal SAR Images Denoising: RABASAR,

    W. Zhao, C.-A. Deledalle, L. Denis, H. Ma ˆıtre, J.-M. Nicolas, and F. Tupin, “Ratio-based Multitemporal SAR Images Denoising: RABASAR,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 3552–3565, 2019

    2019

  54. [63]

    Monitoring forest loss in alos/palsar time-series with superpixels,

    C. Marshak, M. Simard, and M. Denbina, “Monitoring forest loss in alos/palsar time-series with superpixels,” Remote Sensing , vol. 11, no. 5, p. 556, 2019

    2019

  55. [64]

    Unsupervised change-detection based on convolutional-autoencoder feature extrac- tion,

    L. Bergamasco, S. Saha, F. Bovolo, and L. Bruzzone, “Unsupervised change-detection based on convolutional-autoencoder feature extrac- tion,” in Image and Signal Processing for Remote Sensing XXV , vol. 11155. SPIE, 2019, pp. 325–332

    2019

  56. [65]

    Automatic Analysis of the Difference Image for Unsupervised Change Detection,

    L. Bruzzone and D. Prieto, “Automatic Analysis of the Difference Image for Unsupervised Change Detection,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 1171–1182, 2000

    2000

  57. [66]

    Rapid and robust monitoring of flood events using sentinel- 1 and landsat data on the google earth engine,

    B. DeVries, C. Huang, J. Armston, W. Huang, J. W. Jones, and M. W. Lang, “Rapid and robust monitoring of flood events using sentinel- 1 and landsat data on the google earth engine,” Remote Sensing of Environment, vol. 240, p. 111664, 2020

    2020

  58. [67]

    Characterizing tropical forest cover loss using dense sentinel-1 data and active fire alerts,

    J. Reiche, R. Verhoeven, J. Verbesselt, E. Hamunyela, N. Wielaard, and M. Herold, “Characterizing tropical forest cover loss using dense sentinel-1 data and active fire alerts,” Remote Sensing, vol. 10, no. 5, p. 777, 2018

    2018

  59. [68]

    A change detection reality check,

    I. Corley, C. Robinson, and A. Ortiz, “A change detection reality check,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.06994 , 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.06994

    2024 arXiv

  60. [69]

    Learning spectral-spatial- temporal features via a recurrent convolutional neural network for change detection in multispectral imagery,

    L. Mou, L. Bruzzone, and X. X. Zhu, “Learning spectral-spatial- temporal features via a recurrent convolutional neural network for change detection in multispectral imagery,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 924–935, 2018

    2018

  61. [70]

    An Unsupervised Approach based on the Generalized Gaussian Model to Automatic Change Detec- tion in Multitemporal SAR images,

    Y . Bazi, L. Bruzzone, and F. Melgani, “An Unsupervised Approach based on the Generalized Gaussian Model to Automatic Change Detec- tion in Multitemporal SAR images,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 874–887, 2005

    2005

  62. [71]

    Rapid damage mapping for the 2015 m w 7.8 gorkha earthquake using synthetic aperture radar data from cosmo–skymed and alos-2 satellites,

    S.-H. Yun, K. Hudnut, S. Owen, F. Webb, M. Simons, P. Sacco, E. Gur- rola, G. Manipon, C. Liang, E. Fielding et al., “Rapid damage mapping for the 2015 m w 7.8 gorkha earthquake using synthetic aperture radar data from cosmo–skymed and alos-2 satellites,”Seismological Research...

    2015

  63. [72]

    NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 2018, 261 pp

    NISAR Science Team, NASA-ISRO SAR (NISAR) Mission Science Users’ Handbook. NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 2018, 261 pp

    2018

  64. [73]

    Forest disturbance product gener- ation,

    NISAR Science Algorithms Team, “Forest disturbance product gener- ation,” https://gitlab.com/nisar-science-algorithms/ecosystems/forest disturbance/ProductGeneration, 2022, accessed: 2024-10-11

    2022

  65. [74]

    Adapting cusum algorithm for site-specific forest conditions to detect tropical deforestation,

    A. Sabir, U. Khati, M. Lavalle, and H. S. Srivastava, “Adapting cusum algorithm for site-specific forest conditions to detect tropical deforestation,” Remote Sensing, vol. 16, no. 20, p. 3871, 2024

    2024

  66. [75]

    Coherent change detection using insar temporal decorrelation model: A case study for volcanic ash detection,

    J. Jung, D.-j. Kim, M. Lavalle, and S.-H. Yun, “Coherent change detection using insar temporal decorrelation model: A case study for volcanic ash detection,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 54, no. 10, pp. 5765–5775, 2016

    2016

  67. [76]

    Gpt-4 technical report,

    OpenAI, J. Achiam et al. , “Gpt-4 technical report,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774

    2024 arXiv

  68. [77]

    Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,

    J. Devlin, “Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  69. [78]

    Masked autoencoders as spatiotemporal learners,

    C. Feichtenhofer, h. fan, Y . Li, and K. He, “Masked autoencoders as spatiotemporal learners,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , S. Koyejo, S. Mohamed, A. Agarwal, D. Belgrave, K. Cho, and A. Oh, Eds., vol. 35. Curran Associates, Inc., 2022, pp. 35 946–35 ...

    2022

  70. [79]

    Segment anything,

    A. Kirillov, E. Mintun, N. Ravi, H. Mao, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson, T. Xiao, S. Whitehead, A. C. Berg, W.-Y . Lo et al. , “Segment anything,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 4015–4026

    2023

  71. [80]

    Masked autoencoders as spatiotemporal learners,

    C. Feichtenhofer, Y . Li, K. He et al. , “Masked autoencoders as spatiotemporal learners,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 35, pp. 35 946–35 958, 2022

    2022

  72. [81]

    Florence: A new foundation model for computer vision,

    L. Yuan, D. Chen, Y .-L. Chen, N. Codella, X. Dai, J. Gao, H. Hu, X. Huang, B. Li, C. Li et al., “Florence: A new foundation model for computer vision,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.11432 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  73. [82]

    Geo- bench: Toward foundation models for earth monitoring,

    A. Lacoste, N. Lehmann, P. Rodriguez, E. Sherwin, H. Kerner, B. L¨utjens, J. Irvin, D. Dao, H. Alemohammad, A. Drouin et al., “Geo- bench: Toward foundation models for earth monitoring,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 36, 2024

    2024

  74. [83]

    Scale- mae: A scale-aware masked autoencoder for multiscale geospatial representation learning,

    C. J. Reed, R. Gupta, S. Li, S. Brockman, C. Funk, B. Clipp, K. Keutzer, S. Candido, M. Uyttendaele, and T. Darrell, “Scale- mae: A scale-aware masked autoencoder for multiscale geospatial representation learning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Com...

    2023

  75. [84]

    Foundation Models for Generalist Geospatial Artificial Intelligence,

    J. Jakubik, S. Roy, C. Phillips, P. Fraccaro, D. Godwin, B. Zadrozny, D. Szwarcman, C. Gomes, G. Nyirjesy, B. Edwards et al., “Foundation Models for Generalist Geospatial Artificial Intelligence,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.18660, 2023

    arXiv

  76. [85]

    Model repository,

    Clay Foundation and Development Seed LLC., “Model repository,” https://github.com/Clay-foundation/model, 2024, accessed: 2024-10- 11

    2024

  77. [86]

    Ssl4eo- l: Datasets and foundation models for landsat imagery,

    A. Stewart, N. Lehmann, I. Corley, Y . Wang, Y .-C. Chang, N. A. Ait Ali Braham, S. Sehgal, C. Robinson, and A. Banerjee, “Ssl4eo- l: Datasets and foundation models for landsat imagery,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 36, 2024

    2024

  78. [87]

    Depth any canopy: Leveraging depth foundation models for canopy height estimation,

    D. R. Cambrin, I. Corley, and P. Garza, “Depth any canopy: Leveraging depth foundation models for canopy height estimation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.04523, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  79. [88]

    Large scale masked autoen- coding for reducing label requirements on sar data,

    M. Allen, F. Dorr, J. A. Gallego-Mejia, L. Mart ´ınez-Ferrer, A. Jung- bluth, F. Kalaitzis, and R. Ramos-Poll ´an, “Large scale masked autoen- coding for reducing label requirements on sar data,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.00826, 2023

    arXiv

  80. [89]

    Auto-encoding variational bayes,

    D. P. Kingma, “Auto-encoding variational bayes,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114, 2013

    2013 arXiv

  81. [90]

    Beyond a gaussian denoiser: Residual learning of deep CNN for image denoising,

    K. Zhang, W. Zuo, Y . Chen, D. Meng, and L. Zhang, “Beyond a gaussian denoiser: Residual learning of deep CNN for image denoising,” CoRR, vol. abs/1608.03981, 2016. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1608.03981

    2016 arXiv

  82. [91]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,

    J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel, “Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 33, pp. 6840–6851, 2020

    2020

  83. [92]

    Videomae: Masked autoencoders are data-efficient learners for self-supervised video pre- training,

    Z. Tong, Y . Song, J. Wang, and L. Wang, “Videomae: Masked autoencoders are data-efficient learners for self-supervised video pre- training,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 35, pp. 10 078–10 093, 2022

    2022

  84. [93]

    Forest disturbance detection via self-supervised and transfer learning with sentinel-1 2 images,

    R. S. Kuzu, O. Antropov, M. Molinier, C. O. Dumitru, S. Saha, and X. X. Zhu, “Forest disturbance detection via self-supervised and transfer learning with sentinel-1 2 images,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, vol. 17, pp. 4751–4...

    2024

  85. [94]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2016, pp. 770–778

    2016

  86. [95]

    Layer normalization,

    J. Lei Ba, J. R. Kiros, and G. E. Hinton, “Layer normalization,” ArXiv e-prints, pp. arXiv–1607, 2016

    2016

  87. [96]

    Planet application program interface: In space for life on earth,

    P. L. PBC, “Planet application program interface: In space for life on earth,” Planet, 2018–. [Online]. Available: https://api.planet.com

    2018

  88. [97]

    Inferno Scars Valpara ´ıso,

    NASA Earth Observatory, “Inferno Scars Valpara ´ıso,” https: //earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/152417/inferno-scars-valparaiso, 2024, [Online; accessed 16-Oct-2024]

    2024

  89. [98]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,

    D. P. Kingma, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  90. [99]

    Esri World Imagery,

    ESRI from DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, iCubed, USDA FSA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community, “Esri World Imagery,” https://www.arcgis.com/home/item. html?id=10df2279f9684e4a9f6a7f08febac2a9, 2024, [Online; accessed 16-Oct-2024]

    2024

  91. [100]

    Rapid mapping of landslides on sar data by attention u- net,

    L. Nava, K. Bhuyan, S. R. Meena, O. Monserrat, and F. Catani, “Rapid mapping of landslides on sar data by attention u- net,” Remote Sensing , vol. 14, no. 6, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/14/6/1449

    2022

  92. [101]

    On the properties of neural machine translation: Encoder- decoder approaches,

    K. Cho, “On the properties of neural machine translation: Encoder- decoder approaches,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1259 , 2014

    2014 arXiv

  93. [102]

    Understanding the effective receptive field in deep convolutional neural networks,

    W. Luo, Y . Li, R. Urtasun, and R. Zemel, “Understanding the effective receptive field in deep convolutional neural networks,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 29, 2016

    2016

  94. [103]

    OPERA Level-2 Radiometric Terrain Corrected from Sentinel-1,

    OPERA, “OPERA Level-2 Radiometric Terrain Corrected from Sentinel-1,” Fairbanks, Alaska, USA: NASA Alaska Satellite Facility Distributed Active Archive Center, 2023, [Online; accessed 16-Oct- 2024]

    2023

  95. [104]

    The insar scientific computing environment 3.0: a flexible framework for nisar operational and user-led science processing,

    P. A. Rosen, E. M. Gurrola, P. Agram, J. Cohen, M. Lavalle, B. V . Riel, H. Fattahi, M. A. Aivazis, M. Simons, and S. M. Buckley, “The insar scientific computing environment 3.0: a flexible framework for nisar operational and user-led science processing,” in IGARSS 2018- 2018 ...

    2018

  96. [105]

    RTC Sentinel-1 Table (JSON),

    OPERA Cal/Val Team, “RTC Sentinel-1 Table (JSON),” https://github.com/OPERA-Cal-Val/dist-s1-validation-harness/blob/ dev/data/rtc s1 table.json.zip, 2024, [Online; accessed 16-Oct-2024]

    2024

  97. [106]

    Dist validation repos- itory,

    A. Pickens and OPERA Cal/Val Team, “Dist validation repos- itory,” https://github.com/OPERA-Cal-Val/DIST-Validation/tree/main, 2024, accessed: 2024-10-11

    2024

  98. [107]

    Mulog, or how to apply gaussian denoisers to multi-channel sar speckle reduction?

    C.-A. Deledalle, L. Denis, S. Tabti, and F. Tupin, “Mulog, or how to apply gaussian denoisers to multi-channel sar speckle reduction?” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 4389–4403, 2017

    2017

  99. [108]

    Nonlinear total variation based noise removal algorithms,

    L. I. Rudin, S. Osher, and E. Fatemi, “Nonlinear total variation based noise removal algorithms,” Physica D: nonlinear phenomena , vol. 60, no. 1-4, pp. 259–268, 1992

    1992

  100. [109]

    Satellite- detected Water Extents Between 4-11 July 2024 in Bangladesh,

    Humanitarian Data Exchange (HDX), “Satellite- detected Water Extents Between 4-11 July 2024 in Bangladesh,” https://data.humdata.org/dataset/ satellite-detected-water-extents-between-4-11-july-2024-in-bangladesh, 2024, [Online; accessed 16-Oct-2024]

    2024

  101. [110]

    Satellite imagery shows scale of devastation after papua new guinea landslide,

    R. Picheta, “Satellite imagery shows scale of devastation after papua new guinea landslide,” https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/28/asia/ papua-new-guinea-landslide-satellite-imagery-intl/index.html, 2024

    2024

  102. [111]

    First Look at the PNG Landslide Site,

    ABC News, “First Look at the PNG Landslide Site,” https://web.archive.org/web/20240601132827/https://www.abc.net. au/news/2024-05-31/first-look-at-the-png-landslide-site/103920178, 2024, [Archived; accessed 16-Oct-2024]

    2024

  103. [112]

    Papua new guinea landslide: 670 feared dead, says un migration agency,

    UN, “Papua new guinea landslide: 670 feared dead, says un migration agency,” https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/05/1150246, 2024

    2024

  104. [113]

    Fires rage in central chile,

    E. Cassidy, “Fires rage in central chile,” https://earthobservatory.nasa. gov/images/152411/fires-rage-in-central-chile, 2024

    2024

  105. [114]

    The death toll from chile’s wildfires reaches 131, and more than 300 people are missing,

    AP, “The death toll from chile’s wildfires reaches 131, and more than 300 people are missing,” https://apnews.com/article/ chile-deadly-wildfires-valparaiso-d40a40ed31d14d7901080f0d700d2afa, 2024

    2024

  106. [115]

    Copernicus Emergency Management System © 2024 European Union, EMSR715, https://rapidmapping.emergency.copernicus.eu/EMSR715/ download

    2024

  107. [116]

    Inferno Scars Valpara ´ıso - StoryMaps,

    ESRI StoryMaps, “Inferno Scars Valpara ´ıso - StoryMaps,” https: //storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/6182cb43b76e4aaab634c4b5eb1b423a, 2024, [Online; accessed 16-Oct-2024]

    2024

  108. [117]

    Bangladesh situation report no. 3 (cy- clone remal and floods), 11 september 2024,

    UNICEF, “Bangladesh situation report no. 3 (cy- clone remal and floods), 11 september 2024,” https://reliefweb.int/report/bangladesh/unicef-bangladesh-situation- report-no-3-cyclone-remal-and-floods-11-september-2024, 2024

    2024

  109. [118]

    K. P. Murphy, Machine learning: a probabilistic perspective . MIT press, 2012

    2012

  110. [119]

    The relationship between precision-recall and roc curves,

    J. Davis and M. Goadrich, “The relationship between precision-recall and roc curves,” in Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Machine learning , 2006, pp. 233–240

    2006

  111. [120]

    Flood detection in time series of optical and sar images,

    C. Rambour, N. Audebert, E. Koeniguer, B. Le Saux, M. Crucianu, and M. Datcu, “Flood detection in time series of optical and sar images,” The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences , vol. 43, no. B2, pp. 1343–1346, 2020. H...

    2020

  112. [1901]

    Available: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper files/ paper/2020/file/1457c0d6bfcb4967418bfb8ac142f64a-Paper.pdf

    [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper files/ paper/2020/file/1457c0d6bfcb4967418bfb8ac142f64a-Paper.pdf

    2020

  113. [2018]

    Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/10/5/777

    [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/10/5/777

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.