Fourier-Modulated Implicit Neural Representation for Multispectral Satellite Image Compression

Darongsae Kwon; Junhyuk Heo; Steve Andreas Immanuel; Woojin Cho

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 25 references

Fourier-Modulated Implicit Neural Representation for Multispectral Satellite Image Compression

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fourier modulation conditioned on per-band resolution lets one implicit neural network compress all 13 Sentinel-2 bands, with 4–6 dB higher PSNR than shift/scale baselines.

desk verdict A plausible INR compression extension for multispectral satellite data that overreaches on 'optimal compression'; the central Fourier-modulation claim needs controlled ablations and rate-distortion evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.01234 v2 pith:36GHRWM3 submitted 2025-06-02 cs.CV cs.AIeess.IV

Woojin Cho , Steve Andreas Immanuel , Junhyuk Heo , Darongsae Kwon This is my paper

classification cs.CVcs.AIeess.IV

keywords multispectralsatelliteimagecompressionimplicitneuralrepresentationFouriermodulationhypernetworklow-rankadaptationSentinel-2PSNRevaluation

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

ImpliSat is a compression scheme that encodes a 13-band multispectral satellite image as the weights of one implicit neural network, then reconstructs any band by querying the network with spatial coordinates. The paper argues that the standard practice of feeding every band the same fixed Fourier features is mismatched to satellite data, because bands differ in ground-sampling distance (10, 20, or 60 m per pixel) and therefore in spatial frequency content. ImpliSat instead has a small hypernetwork generate Fourier frequency and phase matrices separately for each band's resolution and channel code, and folds those modulations into the backbone weights through a low-rank decomposition. In the paper's experiments on five Sentinel-2 scenes, this Fourier modulation reconstructs images with scene-average PSNR of 32.8–36.4 dB, about 4–6 dB above the shift- and scale-modulation baselines, and up to about 15 dB higher on the coarsest 60 m band. A reader should care because onboard satellites must discard data when transmission windows are short, so a single INR checkpoint about ten times smaller than the raw image is a concrete candidate for reducing the data that has to come down.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is Fourier modulation: a small hypernetwork takes the resolution value $\eta\in\{10,20,60\}$ m GSD and a one-hot channel code $\psi$, and outputs per-layer frequency and phase matrices $\Omega_l,\phi_l$. An $m\times m$ matrix $Z$ is sampled from $U(-2\pi,2\pi)$ and combined as $f^l_{\mathrm{mod}}=\cos(\Omega_l\odot Z+\phi_l)$. Each backbone layer is then rewritten as $W_l=W_\alpha^l f^l_{\mathrm{mod}} W_\beta^l$, a low-rank decomposition with $m\ll n$ so the only trainable backbone parameters are the small factors $W_\alpha^l,W_\beta^l$. This makes the same sinusoidal-activation INR (SIREN) adapt its frequency content per band, rather than forcing one fixed Fourier embedding onto bands with very different spatial detail.

What would settle it

Compress the same five scenes at matched bitrates by quantizing and entropy-coding the INR weights, then plot rate-distortion curves against JPEG2000 and a learned image codec; if Fourier modulation does not beat the alternatives at equal bits, or if its advantage over shift/scale disappears once bitstream size is included, the compression claim would be settled against it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Fourier modulation—replacing a fixed Fourier feature map with per-band frequency and phase matrices generated by a hypernetwork—lets a single SIREN backbone fit multispectral images at all three native resolutions without separate models or resolution-specific preprocessing. Concretely, the hypernetwork takes the band's ground-sampling distance $\eta\in\{10,20,60\}$ and a one-hot channel code $\psi$, produces per-layer modulation matrices $f^l=\cos(\Omega_l\odot Z+\phi_l)$, and applies them as $W_l=W_\alpha^l f^l W_\beta^l$, so only low-rank factors are trained. The reported results across Cairo, Merapi, London, Seoul, and Hawaii are scene-average PSNRs of 32.81–36.39 dB for Fourier modulation versus 27.88–30.25 dB for scale and 28.12–30.25 dB for shift; on the 60 m band B1 of Cairo it reaches 48.43 dB versus 33.75 dB for shift. The paper reads this as evidence that conditioning frequency content on resolution lets the INR preserve sharp edges in 10 m urban bands while adapting its spectrum to the smoother 60 m bands.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that per-image reconstruction PSNR on five hand-picked Sentinel-2 scenes, with no error bars, no bitstream-size comparison, and no generalization test, is a sufficient proxy for compression effectiveness.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A single roughly 1 MB INR checkpoint can hold a 9.4 MB 13-band scene, reducing the storage-and-downlink bottleneck that forces satellites to discard data by about an order of magnitude.
Bands at 10 m, 20 m, and 60 m GSD no longer need separate codecs; one network queried with coordinates plus the resolution and channel code produces all of them.
Because the hypernetwork learns different frequency distributions for different GSDs, the method does not require a hand-designed frequency schedule per band.
The per-band PSNR results imply the modulation preserves detail across resolution tiers: the 10 m urban bands and the 20 m vegetation bands both improve, not only the coarse 60 m bands.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's numbers compare modulation schemes at an equal training budget, not at an equal compressed bitrate; a fairer compression test would quantize and entropy-code the INR weights and add JPEG2000 or learned-codec rate-distortion curves, and the stated gains could shrink once side information and weight quantization are counted.
The frequency histograms in Fig. 5 suggest a testable extension: if bands of the same GSD share modulation statistics, a shared per-GSD Fourier basis might reach similar PSNR with a smaller hypernetwork.
The mechanism is stated for Sentinel-2's $\{10,20,60\}$ m grid, but nothing in the construction is Sentinel-specific; applying it to hyperspectral or multi-scale medical images would test whether the resolution-conditioning idea generalizes.
Because training is per-image overfitting, the method is best framed as an encoder-free codec; a natural next experiment is whether the hypernetwork can be amortized across many scenes to avoid per-image training cost.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The core idea is real: ImpliSat conditions Fourier modulation on GSD and one-hot band ID, generated by a hypernetwork and applied through a low-rank decomposition, for INR-based compression of multispectral satellite imagery. On five Sentinel-2 scenes it reports 3–8 dB PSNR gains over shift/scale modulation plus a 10x parameter reduction. That is a legitimate empirical result within a narrow family of methods, and the architecture is simple and clearly described. The convergence curve is a nice sanity check, and the problem—13 bands at 10/20/60m resolution—is genuinely worth addressing.

The soft spots are not minor. The most load-bearing issue is internal validity: the shift/scale baselines, as defined in Section IV-B, are generic layerwise modulation formulas. They are not given the same per-band/resolution conditioning that ImpliSat feeds to the hypernetwork, nor the same low-rank weight parameterization from Eq. (3). So the reported gains could come from conditioning granularity or parameterization rather than the cosine Fourier form. The stress-test concern lands. The paper needs ablations that cross both variables (modulation type and conditioning/low-rank structure) to attribute the improvement to Fourier modulation.

The second soft spot is the phrase 'optimal compression,' which is unsupported. There are no bitrates, no rate-distortion curves, no comparisons to JPEG2000 or any learned codec, and no generalization tests. PSNR on per-image overfitting is not a compression metric. Third, five hand-picked scenes with no error bars or repeated runs is thin for a 20% improvement claim. Fourth, the Fig. 5 frequency histograms are post-hoc description, not evidence. The citation pattern looks fine, and the lack of formal derivation is not a problem for an empirical curve-fitting paper.

The narrow claim—that this Fourier modulation scheme beats shift and scale on these five scenes—is supported if the baselines are fair, but the paper does not currently show that they are. The broad claims need much more evidence. I would send this to peer review rather than desk reject, because the architecture is relevant to the INR and satellite-imaging communities and the reported gains are large enough to warrant verification. A serious referee should ask for controlled ablations, rate-distortion evaluation, and released code and data.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ImpliSat, an implicit neural representation (INR) framework for multispectral satellite image compression. The core idea is to condition the INR on the spatial resolution (ground sample distance) and spectral channel of each Sentinel-2 band, and to modulate the backbone weights through a hypernetwork-generated Fourier modulation of the form cos(Ω ⊙ Z + φ), applied via a low-rank decomposition (Eq. 3). The authors evaluate reconstruction quality (PSNR/MSE) on five manually selected Sentinel-2 scenes, comparing their method against shift and scale modulation baselines from prior INR compression work. They report consistent PSNR gains of roughly 3–8 dB, with the largest gains on the 60m GSD band, and present convergence curves and histograms of learned modulation frequencies. The manuscript frames the contribution as a compression method, but the evaluation is entirely in terms of per-image overfitting reconstruction quality; no bitstreams, rate–distortion curves, or comparisons to standard codecs such as JPEG2000 are provided.

Significance. If the claimed gains are real and attributable to the Fourier modulation mechanism, the work would be a useful incremental contribution to INR-based compression for multi-resolution multispectral imagery. The problem is well motivated, the architecture is simple and clearly described, and the authors compare against two relevant modulation baselines. However, the current evidence is not sufficient to establish the central claim. The comparison confounds modulation type with conditioning granularity and with low-rank weight parameterization, and the paper does not measure compression in the rate–distortion sense. As presented, the result is a promising preliminary finding rather than a validated compression algorithm. The specific falsifiable prediction—that Fourier modulation yields better reconstruction than shift/scale under identical conditioning and parameterization—should be tested with controlled ablations.

major comments (4)

[Section IV-B / Table II] The comparison between Fourier modulation and the shift/scale baselines is confounded with conditioning granularity. In Section III-B, the hypernetwork for Fourier modulation explicitly takes the resolution η and channel ψ as inputs and generates per-band, per-resolution modulation parameters. The baselines in Section IV-B are described simply as adding a bias μ (shift) or scaling with κ (scale) at each layer, with no mention of conditioning on η or ψ. If the baselines use a single global modulation for all 13 bands, then Table II conflates two variables: the modulation mechanism (Fourier vs. shift/scale) and the granularity of the conditioning (per-band/resolution vs. global). A band such as B1 (60m GSD) would naturally benefit from a dedicated per-band modulation even if the modulation were shift or scale, so the reported 48.43 dB vs. 33.44 dB gap on Cairo (Fig. 3) cannot be attributed to the cosine form. The authors should run controlled ablations in which shift and scale are also generated by a hypernetwork conditioned on η and ψ, with the same architecture and training protocol.
[Section III-C / Eq. (3)] The Fourier modulation is applied through a low-rank decomposition W_l = W_α · f_mod · W_β with m=32 and n=256, whereas the shift and scale baselines operate on the full-rank weight matrix (adding bias or scaling activations). This means the comparison in Table II also conflates modulation type with weight parameterization: the Fourier model has far fewer backbone parameters due to low-rank adaptation, and the baselines do not benefit from that parameter reduction. To isolate the effect of the modulation function, the shift and scale baselines should be implemented in the same low-rank, conditional framework (e.g., replace the cosine modulation in Eq. (3) with a constant or with shift/scale operations on the inner matrix). Without such an ablation, the reported gains cannot be attributed to the Fourier modulation itself.
[Section IV-A / Title and Abstract] The paper is titled and framed as a compression method, and the abstract states that the approach ensures 'optimal compression,' but no compression metrics are reported. The only size-related claim is that the model checkpoint is about 1MB, roughly 10× smaller than the original 9.4MB image (Section IV-A). This is not a compressed bitstream: no entropy coding is applied, no rate–distortion curves are provided, and no comparison is made to standard codecs (e.g., JPEG2000) or to learned compression methods such as COIN++ [16], which is cited as a baseline but not evaluated. PSNR on a per-image overfitting task is a reconstruction-quality metric, not a compression-efficiency metric. To support the compression claim, the authors need to report actual bitrates, the number of bytes transmitted after quantization/entropy coding, and rate–distortion comparisons with established codecs. The phrase 'optimal compression' should be removed or replaced with a qualified statement.
[Section IV-B] The evaluation is based on only five manually chosen scenes, with a single training run per scene and no error bars or statistical significance tests. The claim 'Fourier modulation consistently outperforms both shift and scale modulation' (Table II) is based on one number per condition. Given that the reported gaps for some bands are large, this is not by itself disqualifying, but the absence of variance estimates and the small, hand-picked dataset make it difficult to assess whether the advantage is robust. The authors could report results over multiple random seeds, and ideally include a broader set of scenes or a standard benchmark. This concern is secondary to the confounds above, but it affects the generalizability of the conclusion.

minor comments (6)

[Section III-B] The random matrix Z is described as 'sampling an m-dimensional vector from U(−2π, 2π) and stacking it m times.' It is unclear whether Z is shared across layers or generated separately for each layer, and whether it is fixed once at initialization or resampled per training run. Please clarify.
[Section IV-A] The sentence 'around 200K trainable parameters (1MB per model checkpoint, around 10× smaller than the original image)' would benefit from specifying the numerical precision (e.g., float32) and from clarifying whether the 1MB includes both the hypernetwork and the backbone. Also, the original image size is given as 9.4MB; please state the image dimensions, the number of bands, and the bit depth.
[Section IV-B / Fig. 3] Figure 3 shows only one band per environment, and the caption does not specify which band is shown for the first five rows. Since the paper emphasizes per-band differences, it would be helpful to display more bands or at least list the band number and GSD for each row.
[Section IV-C / Fig. 5] The histograms in Fig. 5 are a post-hoc description of the learned modulation frequencies; the text says 'these results suggest that the hypernetwork successfully adjusts the frequency content,' but this is a qualitative interpretation. Please state explicitly that this is a descriptive analysis, not a predictive validation, and avoid overinterpreting the differences in distribution width without quantitative measures.
[Equation (2)] The notation {f^l_mod} is used in Eq. (2) before it is defined. Please define f^l_mod explicitly as the output of the cosine operation, and ensure all variables (e.g., Z, Ω_l, φ_l) are introduced in a consistent order.
[References] Reference [15] cites 'PNG: The Definitive Guide' as the source for the PNG format; a more standard citation would be the PNG specification (e.g., the W3C Recommendation or RFC 2083).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No load-bearing circular step found; the paper's claims are empirical and not derived from their own outputs.

full rationale

ImpliSat is an architecture-and-evaluation paper, not a derivation. The Fourier modulation is defined constructively in Eq. (1)-(3): a hypernetwork maps resolution and channel inputs to frequency and phase matrices, and the resulting cosine modulation is applied via low-rank decomposed weights. This object is trained end-to-end and then compared to shift and scale baselines in Table II. No predicted quantity is built from the target result: PSNR values are measured reconstructions, not outputs implied by the definition of Fourier modulation. The self-citations [10,13,18,19] are related work on superexpressive networks, periodic signals, and low-rank physics-informed networks; the actual modulation construction cites external work [20] and LoRA [17], so the central claim does not rest on a self-citation chain. Fig. 5 is a post-hoc histogram of learned modulations and is not used to prove a prediction. The absence of matched ablations and rate-distortion curves noted in the skeptical reading is a threat to internal and external validity, not circularity. Therefore no circular step is identifiable under the paper's stated equations and references.

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

The central claim depends on several hand-chosen hyperparameters (m, n, L, Z sampling range) and on domain-specific assumptions about Sentinel-2 band structure. No new physical entities are introduced. The SIREN background is standard. The fixed Z is an ad hoc choice that could affect generalization.

free parameters (5)

Low-rank rank m = 32
Sets the size of the Fourier modulation matrix and the rank of the low-rank adaptation. Chosen by hand in Section IV-A.
Hidden width n = 256
Width of the backbone INR layers. Chosen by hand in Section IV-A.
Number of layers L = 6
Depth of the backbone INR. Chosen by hand in Section IV-A.
Random matrix Z distribution = U(-2pi,2pi)
Fixed random sample used in all Fourier modulations. The sampling range is chosen by hand and no sensitivity analysis is provided.
Training iterations = 10000 with early stopping
Stopping criterion used for all models. Chosen by hand in Section IV-A.

assumptions (3)

standard math Sinusoidal activation (SIREN) enables implicit networks to represent high-frequency image content
Relies on the result from Sitzmann et al. [8] without re-derivation.
domain assumption Sentinel-2 MSI consists of 13 bands with GSD values 10m, 20m, and 60m
The conditioning inputs eta and psi are defined by these values; other sensors with different bands or resolutions would require retraining or new conditioning.
ad hoc to paper A single fixed random matrix Z is sufficient for all bands and resolutions
Z is drawn once from U(-2pi,2pi) and reused; the paper provides no analysis of sensitivity to this choice.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fourier-Modulated Implicit Neural Representation for Multispectral Satellite Image Compression." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/36GHRWM3

@misc{pith2026250601234,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fourier-Modulated Implicit Neural Representation for Multispectral Satellite Image Compression},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/36GHRWM3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.01234}
}

read the original abstract

Multispectral satellite images play a vital role in agriculture, fisheries, and environmental monitoring. However, their high dimensionality, large data volumes, and diverse spatial resolutions across multiple channels pose significant challenges for data compression and analysis. This paper presents ImpliSat, a unified framework specifically designed to address these challenges through efficient compression and reconstruction of multispectral satellite data. ImpliSat leverages Implicit Neural Representations (INR) to model satellite images as continuous functions over coordinate space, capturing fine spatial details across varying spatial resolutions. Furthermore, we introduce a Fourier modulation algorithm that dynamically adjusts to the spectral and spatial characteristics of each band, ensuring optimal compression while preserving critical image details.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.01234 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Overall architecture of ImpliSat. The left part shows the INR backbone, which takes spatial coordinates as input and is conditioned on resolution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Comparison of ground truth, shift modulation, scale modulation, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Density distribution of the frequency component of Fourier modula [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

[16]

Coin++: Neural compression across modalities,

E. Dupont, H. Loya, M. Alizadeh, A. Goli’nski, Y . W. Teh, and A. Doucet, “Coin++: Neural compression across modalities,” TMLR, 2022

work page 2022
[1]

The role of satellite remote sensing in climate change studies,

J. Yang, P. Gong, R. Fu, M. Zhang, J. Chen, S. Liang, B. Xu, J. Shi, and R. Dickinson, “The role of satellite remote sensing in climate change studies,”Nature climate change, vol. 3, no. 10, pp. 875–883, 2013

work page 2013
[2]

Evidence for climate change in the satellite cloud record,

J. R. Norris, R. J. Allen, A. T. Evan, M. D. Zelinka, C. W. O’Dell, and S. A. Klein, “Evidence for climate change in the satellite cloud record,”Nature, vol. 536, no. 7614, pp. 72–75, 2016

work page 2016
[3]

Stability of boreal forest stands during recent cli- mate change: evidence from landsat satellite imagery,

J. G. Masek, “Stability of boreal forest stands during recent cli- mate change: evidence from landsat satellite imagery,”Journal of biogeography, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 967–976, 2001

work page 2001
[4]

Assessment of surface soil moisture using high-resolution multi-spectral imagery and artificial neural networks,

L. Hassan-Esfahani, A. Torres-Rua, A. Jensen, and M. McKee, “Assessment of surface soil moisture using high-resolution multi-spectral imagery and artificial neural networks,”Remote Sensing, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 2627–2646, 2015

work page 2015
[5]

Global spatial and temporal distribution of vegetation fire as determined from satellite observations,

E. Dwyer, S. Pinnock, J.-M. Gr ´egoire, and J. Pereira, “Global spatial and temporal distribution of vegetation fire as determined from satellite observations,”International Journal of Remote Sensing, vol. 21, no. 6-7, pp. 1289–1302, 2000

work page 2000
[6]

Detecting aquatic vegetation changes in taihu lake, china using multi-temporal satellite imagery,

R. Ma, H. Duan, X. Gu, and S. Zhang, “Detecting aquatic vegetation changes in taihu lake, china using multi-temporal satellite imagery,”Sensors, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 3988–4005, 2008

work page 2008
[7]

Pettorelli,Satellite remote sensing and the management of natural resources

N. Pettorelli,Satellite remote sensing and the management of natural resources. Oxford University Press, 2019

work page 2019

Show all 25 references

[8]

Implicit neural representations with periodic activation functions,

V . Sitzmann, J. Martel, A. Bergman, D. Lindell, and G. Wet- zstein, “Implicit neural representations with periodic activation functions,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 7462–7473, 2020

2020
[9]

Implicit neural representations for image compression,

Y . Str ¨umpler, J. Postels, R. Yang, L. V . Gool, and F. Tombari, “Implicit neural representations for image compression,” in ECCV, 2022

2022
[10]

Unveiling the potential of superexpressive networks in implicit neural representations,

U. B. Mudiyanselage, W. Cho, M. Jo, N. Park, and K. Lee, “Unveiling the potential of superexpressive networks in implicit neural representations,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.21166, 2025

2025 arXiv
[11]

Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis,

B. Mildenhall, P. P. Srinivasan, M. Tancik, J. T. Barron, R. Ra- mamoorthi, and R. Ng, “Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis,” inECCV, 2020

2020
[12]

D-nerf: Neural radiance fields for dynamic scenes,

A. Pumarola, E. Corona, G. Pons-Moll, and F. Moreno-Noguer, “D-nerf: Neural radiance fields for dynamic scenes,” inPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2021, pp. 10 318–10 327

2021
[13]

Neural functions for learning periodic signal,

W. Cho, M. Jo, K. Lee, and N. Park, “Neural functions for learning periodic signal,” inThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

2025
[14]

The jpeg still picture compression standard,

G. K. Wallace, “The jpeg still picture compression standard,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 30–44, 1992

1992
[15]

Boutell,PNG: The Definitive Guide

T. Boutell,PNG: The Definitive Guide. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 1997

1997
[17]

LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models,

E. J. Hu, Y . Shen, P. Wallis, Z. Allen-Zhu, Y . Li, S. Wang, L. Wang, and W. Chen, “LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models,” inInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2022

2022
[18]

Hypernetwork-based meta-learning for low-rank physics-informed neural networks,

W. Cho, K. Lee, D. Rim, and N. Park, “Hypernetwork-based meta-learning for low-rank physics-informed neural networks,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, 2024

2024
[19]

Fastlrnr and sparse physics informed backpropagation,

W. Cho, K. Lee, N. Park, D. Rim, and G. Welper, “Fastlrnr and sparse physics informed backpropagation,”Results in Applied Mathematics, vol. 25, p. 100547, 2025

2025
[20]

Improved implicit neural repre- sentation with fourier reparameterized training,

K. Shi, X. Zhou, and S. Gu, “Improved implicit neural repre- sentation with fourier reparameterized training,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 25 985–25 994

2024
[21]

Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library,

A. Paszke, S. Gross, F. Massa, A. Lerer, J. Bradbury, G. Chanan, T. Killeen, Z. Lin, N. Gimelshein, L. Antigaet al., “Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 32, 2019

2019
[22]

Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,

D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,”CoRR, 2014

2014
[23]

Fletcher,SENTINEL 2: ESA’s Optical High-Resolution Mis- sion for GMES Operational Services

K. Fletcher,SENTINEL 2: ESA’s Optical High-Resolution Mis- sion for GMES Operational Services. European Space Agency, 2012

2012
[24]

From data to functa: Your data point is a function and you can treat it like one,

E. Dupont, H. Kim, S. Eslami, D. Rezende, and D. Rosenbaum, “From data to functa: Your data point is a function and you can treat it like one,” inICML, 2022

2022
[25]

Spatial functa: Scaling functa to imagenet classifi- cation and generation,

M. Bauer, E. Dupont, A. Brock, D. Rosenbaum, J. R. Schwarz, and H. Kim, “Spatial functa: Scaling functa to imagenet classifi- cation and generation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.03130, 2023

2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [16]

Coin++: Neural compression across modalities,

E. Dupont, H. Loya, M. Alizadeh, A. Goli’nski, Y . W. Teh, and A. Doucet, “Coin++: Neural compression across modalities,” TMLR, 2022

work page 2022

[2] [1]

The role of satellite remote sensing in climate change studies,

J. Yang, P. Gong, R. Fu, M. Zhang, J. Chen, S. Liang, B. Xu, J. Shi, and R. Dickinson, “The role of satellite remote sensing in climate change studies,”Nature climate change, vol. 3, no. 10, pp. 875–883, 2013

work page 2013

[3] [2]

Evidence for climate change in the satellite cloud record,

J. R. Norris, R. J. Allen, A. T. Evan, M. D. Zelinka, C. W. O’Dell, and S. A. Klein, “Evidence for climate change in the satellite cloud record,”Nature, vol. 536, no. 7614, pp. 72–75, 2016

work page 2016

[4] [3]

Stability of boreal forest stands during recent cli- mate change: evidence from landsat satellite imagery,

J. G. Masek, “Stability of boreal forest stands during recent cli- mate change: evidence from landsat satellite imagery,”Journal of biogeography, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 967–976, 2001

work page 2001

[5] [4]

Assessment of surface soil moisture using high-resolution multi-spectral imagery and artificial neural networks,

L. Hassan-Esfahani, A. Torres-Rua, A. Jensen, and M. McKee, “Assessment of surface soil moisture using high-resolution multi-spectral imagery and artificial neural networks,”Remote Sensing, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 2627–2646, 2015

work page 2015

[6] [5]

Global spatial and temporal distribution of vegetation fire as determined from satellite observations,

E. Dwyer, S. Pinnock, J.-M. Gr ´egoire, and J. Pereira, “Global spatial and temporal distribution of vegetation fire as determined from satellite observations,”International Journal of Remote Sensing, vol. 21, no. 6-7, pp. 1289–1302, 2000

work page 2000

[7] [6]

Detecting aquatic vegetation changes in taihu lake, china using multi-temporal satellite imagery,

R. Ma, H. Duan, X. Gu, and S. Zhang, “Detecting aquatic vegetation changes in taihu lake, china using multi-temporal satellite imagery,”Sensors, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 3988–4005, 2008

work page 2008

[8] [7]

Pettorelli,Satellite remote sensing and the management of natural resources

N. Pettorelli,Satellite remote sensing and the management of natural resources. Oxford University Press, 2019

work page 2019