Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 45 references

From Machine Learning to Large-Scale EO Products: Best Practices for Making Maps

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Independent map validation is the missing step in most EO products.

desk verdict A solid, well-written synthesis of EO map-making practices that deserves review as a guide, but its subtitle 'best practices' overstates the evidence and should be softened. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.24532 v3 pith:KQZLUI2X submitted 2026-07-27 cs.LG

Ghjulia Sialelli , Robin Young , Yuchang Jiang , Cesar Aybar , Linus Scheibenreif , Damien Robert , Clemens Mosig , Adam J. Stewart
show 4 more authors
Jan D. Wegner Aleksis Pirinen Olof Mogren Konrad Schindler
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords Earthobservationmachinelearningmapvalidationbestpracticesspatialautocorrelationuncertaintyquantificationprobabilitysamplingglobal-scaleinference
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 argues that producing a scientifically credible global map from Earth observation data is an end-to-end systems problem, not a modeling problem. Every stage, from data provider choice and preprocessing to dataset splits, uncertainty quantification, and final validation, is coupled, so errors made early quietly propagate into the finished product. The central practical claim is that held-out model test scores are not enough: a map earns credibility only through independently collected reference data covering the full mapped domain, analyzed with probability sampling and area-weighted accuracy measures. The paper distills this into six thematic areas of recommended practice. If the authors are right, map producers should audit their whole pipeline rather than only the model.

What carries the argument

The organizing device is a six-stage pipeline spanning data infrastructure, selection and preprocessing, dataset construction and training, uncertainty quantification, map production and distribution, and validation, whose stages are explicitly coupled. Two principles carry the argument: 'data gravity,' the constraint that data movement rather than model capacity often binds large-scale inference, and the distinction between model validation and map validation, with probability-based sampling and area-weighted confusion matrices as the gold standard for the latter. The review also relies on a set of named techniques: spatial block cross-validation with buffers to avoid autocorrelation leakage, augmentation of sensor artifacts instead of exhaustive preprocessing, and overlap-blending or padding-and-crop to suppress patch artifacts.

What would settle it

Run a benchmark that applies the paper's recommended pipeline (spatial block splits with buffers, probability-sampled independent validation, padding-and-crop inference) and a minimal baseline (random splits, no independent validation, naive stitching) to the same set of tasks in several regions; if the recommended pipeline does not yield materially better calibration or credibility metrics, the central claim that these are best practices fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the entire workflow for large-scale Earth-observation maps must be managed as a tightly coupled chain, with design choices at each stage shaping what comes after: preprocessing determines the training signal, dataset design determines what the model can learn and how reliably performance is measured, and global inference determines whether a model that works in principle can run wall-to-wall in practice. Its sharpest distinction is between model validation, which estimates generalization on data drawn from the same collection process, and map validation, which assesses the final product against independent reference data with known sampling design. The paper asserts that only the latter establishes credibility, and that naive aggregation of pixel error without accounting for spatial autocorrelation dramatically understates uncertainty at regional scale. It also identifies the main engineering realities: data gravity dictates where compute must live, patch artifacts must be handled by overlap blending or padding-and-crop, and no uncertainty method is simultaneously cheap, scalable, and well calibrated.

Load-bearing premise

The distilled recommendations are assumed to transfer across tasks, sensors, and regions, but no controlled experiment compares them against simpler alternatives, so their claim to be best practices rests on expert consensus rather than a comparative test.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Producers who only report held-out test accuracy are not measuring map quality and should expect their area estimates to be questioned.
  • Dataset splits must respect a spatial buffer exceeding the autocorrelation range of the target variable, or reported performance will be optimistic.
  • Regional aggregate uncertainty shrinks far more slowly than $1/\sqrt{n}$ when pixel errors are spatially correlated, so regional totals need dedicated residual-correlation analysis.
  • Preprocessing choices made for training must be reproduced exactly at inference, so every added correction step carries operational cost at global scale.
  • Distribution formats, grids, and artifact-mitigation strategies should be chosen with cloud-native access and wall-to-wall inference in mind, not only training convenience.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the paper's coupling thesis is right, the field's current practice of incremental model benchmarking is partially misaligned: gains in model architecture can be undone by unnoticed shifts in provider preprocessing, so cross-provider reproducibility tests would be a cheap high-value extension.
  • A controlled comparison of the recommended pipeline against a deliberately simpler one across several tasks and regions would turn these best practices from expert consensus into tested guidance; the paper itself does not run such an experiment.
  • The probability-sampling standard for map validation could be generalized to continuous products through stratified sampling of covariate space, complementing the paper's discussion of opportunistic biomass validation.
  • Standardized reporting of validation provenance, including how reference data were collected and which strata are underrepresented, would make future map comparisons more meaningful than any single accuracy number.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents an end-to-end synthesis of recommended practices for producing large-scale machine-learning maps from Earth observation (EO) data, organized around six themes: EO data infrastructure, data selection and preprocessing, ML dataset construction and training, uncertainty quantification, map production and distribution, and validation. Its central claims are that these pipeline stages are tightly coupled, that decisions at each stage propagate errors downstream, that model evaluation is distinct from map validation, and that probability-based reference sampling is the gold standard for map accuracy assessment. The paper is explicitly a condensed version of a longer online guide and relies on published evidence and practitioner experience rather than on new experiments.

Significance. If taken as a practical guide, the paper is a useful consolidation of otherwise dispersed knowledge. Its strengths include a clear separation of model validation from map validation, concrete recommendations such as spatial block splits with buffers (Section 4) and design-based accuracy assessment with probability sampling (Section 7), and informative comparative tables of data providers, storage formats, and global grids. The recommendations are broadly consistent with the cited remote-sensing and spatial-statistics literature. The main limitation is that the paper presents no original validation of its own guidance, and the transferability of the recommendations across tasks, sensors, and regions is not demonstrated; its significance is therefore that of a well-organized expert synthesis rather than a new empirical result.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5] The statement "No method is simultaneously cheap, scalable, and well-calibrated" is an absolute claim made without proof or a supporting citation. Because this claim supports the paper's advice to choose an uncertainty quantification method based on intended use, it should either be backed by a systematic review or softened into a comparative statement (e.g., "among the methods considered here, none achieves all three properties simultaneously") with an explicit discussion of whether "well-calibrated" means marginal or conditional coverage.
  2. [Section 4 and Conclusion] The claim that "spatial autocorrelation demands blocked splits" is presented as a universal rule, but the appropriate splitting strategy depends on the spatial autocorrelation range of the target variable, sensor artifacts, and the deployment domain; the paper itself acknowledges this in Section 4 by recommending buffer distances that exceed the autocorrelation range. Please qualify the conclusion and add an explicit statement that the recommendations are context-dependent and should be adapted to the task at hand.
  3. [Section 2 and Appendix C] The claims that Google Earth Engine automatically corrects the Sentinel-2 radiometric offset in COPERNICUS/S2_HARMONIZED and applies a full preprocessing chain to Sentinel-1 GRD data are stated as fact but no primary source is cited. Since these examples are used to support the argument that the choice of data provider is not neutral, either cite the official documentation or explicitly mark the claims as based on vendor documentation and subject to change.
  4. [Sections 1 and 8] The title promises "Best Practices," but the guidance is not validated against alternatives in a controlled way, and the unstated assumption that the practices transfer across tasks, sensors, and regions is load-bearing. Please add a limitations paragraph, or extend Section 8, explicitly stating the evidence base (published studies, common practice, expert input), the absence of a controlled comparison, and the need for practitioners to verify the recommendations in their own settings.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3] There is a typo: "tehese datasets" should be "these datasets."
  2. [Section 6] The text says "the data gravity constraint introduced in §A"; data gravity is introduced in Section 2, not Appendix A, so the cross-reference should be corrected.
  3. [Appendix G, Table 3] The table appears to contain garbled formatting artifacts in the footnote text ("♂¶ap-pinThe property holds lo..."); this should be cleaned up.
  4. [Section 2] The phrase "Tab. 1 in the appendix" would be clearer as "Table 1 in Appendix A."
  5. [Figures 2 and 3] The figure captions are informative but could state the recommended choice explicitly (for example, "we recommend (c) blocks with buffer" and "we recommend (b) padding with center cropping") to help readers who skim the figures.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the paper is a synthesis of externally citable best practices, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper fits no parameters and derives no quantitative prediction from its own equations. Its prescriptive claims are supported by independent, cited literature: spatial block splits and buffers cite Ploton et al. and Roberts et al. ([29,30]); probability-based map validation cites Stehman & Czaplewski and Olofsson et al. ([33,24]); spatially correlated map error cites Wadoux & Heuvelink and Johnson et al. ([39,15]). The small number of citations to work co-authored by this paper's authors (e.g., TorchGeo [35], the global canopy height model [17], and BRDF normalization [21]) are used as examples of existing datasets, products, or tools, not as the premise of a conclusion, so they are not load-bearing. The central claim that the EO map-making pipeline is tightly coupled, and that model validation is distinct from map validation, is argued from the cited accuracy-assessment literature rather than from a self-referential definition. The paper's stated scope is to 'distill common practices, recurring pitfalls, and recommended approaches' (Section 1), which is a synthesis task; concerns about whether these recommendations are empirically validated across tasks, sensors, and regions are correctness/support concerns, not circularity. No equation (e.g., the Sentinel-2 reflectance conversions in Appendix C) is used to generate a prediction from fitted inputs. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

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

The paper introduces no free parameters and no invented entities. It relies on background assumptions about spatial autocorrelation, probability sampling, data gravity, and specific data-provider behavior; these are drawn from cited literature and practitioner experience rather than derived in this paper.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Spatial autocorrelation in labels inflates apparent performance if splits are random.
    Invoked in Section 4 to motivate block cross-validation; it is a well-established statistical property but treated as background knowledge rather than derived.
  • domain assumption Probability sampling with known inclusion probabilities is the gold standard for unbiased map accuracy assessment.
    Invoked in Section 7 via Stehman and Czaplewski; this is a methodological commitment of the design-based inference community, not a result derived in this paper.
  • standard math Conformal prediction provides distribution-free marginal coverage guarantees.
    Used in Section 5 to characterize conformal prediction; this is a standard result from the conformal prediction literature.
  • domain assumption Data gravity, namely that moving petabyte-scale data dominates cost, constrains pipeline design.
    Stated in Sections 2 and 6 as a primary design factor; accepted as a practical constraint from large-scale systems experience.
  • domain assumption Google Earth Engine's COPERNICUS/S2_HARMONIZED collection automatically corrects the Sentinel-2 radiometric offset, while other platforms may not.
    Used in Section 2 and Appendix C to warn about distribution shifts between providers; this is a provider-behavior fact not independently verified in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Machine Learning to Large-Scale EO Products: Best Practices for Making Maps." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KQZLUI2X

@misc{pith2026260724532,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Machine Learning to Large-Scale EO Products: Best Practices for Making Maps},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KQZLUI2X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24532}
}
read the original abstract

Recent years have seen a rapid expansion in the production of large-scale geospatial maps derived from Earth observation (EO) data, driven largely by advances in machine learning (ML) and large computing infrastructure. Although the barrier to generating such maps has dropped substantially, established best practices have yet to emerge, and design decisions made early in the pipeline can quietly propagate errors into the final product. Producing a technically sound and scientifically credible product remains challenging. Choices made at every stage are tightly coupled: preprocessing decisions shape the training signal, dataset design governs what the model can learn and how reliably its performance can be assessed, and global-scale inference introduces engineering challenges in compute and data access at scale, as well as artifact mitigation. Furthermore, uncertainty quantification and independent map validation each require dedicated methodological attention that is often underestimated. This paper presents a concise, end-to-end account of the recommended practices spanning the pipeline from satellite data to an operational map product. We organize the discussion around six interconnected themes: the EO data infrastructure landscape, data selection and preprocessing, ML dataset construction and model training, uncertainty quantification, map production and distribution, and validation. This paper is a condensed version of a longer guide that provides greater depth across all stages, accessible online at ghjuliasialelli.github.io/ML-EO-Maps/.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24532 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sentinel-2 artifacts. Top: L2A products for tile 31TGN from two orbits on the same date—orbit 008 (left) partially covers the tile while orbit 108 (right) covers it fully. Middle: Products for tile 30SUH from two sensors on consecutive days, each covering a complementary portion. Bottom: Two L2A products for tile 30STH from the same orbit and date, resulting from a data strip split. Images acquired using the Coperni… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. illustrates three splitting strategies and their effect on train–test leakage due to spatial autocorrelation. (a) Random split Train/test neighbours share autocorrelated signal → Optimistic evaluation (b) Spatial blocks Folds separated, but cross-fold pairs near boundaries still correlated if blocks are too small → Better, but potential edge leakage (c) Blocks + buffer zone Buffer excludes near-boundary samples from… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. compares the two main strategies for handling border effects when merging patch-level predictions into a seamless map. (a) Overlapping patches + blending 1. Overlapping grid Patch i Patch i+1 overlap 2. Weighted merge weight profiles (e.g. cosine) • Smooth transitions • Blurs predictions in overlap zone • Complicates uncertainty propagation (b) Padding + crop to center 1. Expand with context patch padding 2. Predict… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing202, 682–690 (Aug 2023).https://doi.org/10.1016/j

    Bauer-Marschallinger,B.,Falkner,K.:Wastingpetabytes:AsurveyoftheSentinel- 2 UTM tiling grid and its spatial overhead. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing202, 682–690 (Aug 2023).https://doi.org/10.1016/j. isprsjprs.2023.07.015,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2023.07. 015

    doi:10.1016/j 2023

  2. [2]

    Scientific Data9(1) (Jun 2022).https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01307-4, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01307-4

    Brown, C.F., Brumby, S.P., Guzder-Williams, B., Birch, T., Hyde, S.B., Maz- zariello, J., Czerwinski, W., Pasquarella, V.J., Haertel, R., Ilyushchenko, S., Schwehr, K., Weisse, M., Stolle, F., Hanson, C., Guinan, O., Moore, R., Tait, A.M.: Dynamic World, Near real-time global 10m land use land cover mapping. Scientific Data9(1) (Jun 2022).https://doi.org/...

    doi:10.1038/s41597-022-01307-4 2022

  3. [3]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.22291 (2025),https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.22291 10 G

    Brown, C.F., Kazmierski, M.R., Pasquarella, V.J., Rucklidge, W.J., Samsikova, M., Zhang, C., Shelhamer, E., Lahera, E., Wiles, O., Ilyushchenko, S., Gorelick, N., Zhang, L.L., Alj, S., Schechter, E., Askay, S., Guinan, O., Moore, R., Boukouvalas, A., Kohli, P.: AlphaEarth Foundations: An embedding field model for accurate and efficient global mapping from...

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    In: Duncanson, L., Disney, M., Armston, J., Minor, D., Camacho, F., Nickeson, J

    Duncanson, L., Armston, J., Disney, M., Avitabile, V., Barbier, N., Calders, K., Carter, S., Chave, J., Herold, M., MacBean, N., McRoberts, R., Minor, D., Paul, K., Réjou-Méchain, M., Roxburgh, S., Williams, M., Albinet, C., Baker, T., Bartholomeus, H., Bastin, J.F., Coomes, D., Crowther, T., Davies, S., de Bruin, S., De Kauwe, M., Domke, G., Falkowski, M...

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    (eds.): 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

    Eggleston, H.S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T., Tanabe, K. (eds.): 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Institute for Global En- vironmental Strategies (IGES) for the IPCC, Hayama, Japan (2006),https: //www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.20380 (2025),https:// arxiv.org/abs/2506.20380

    Feng, Z., Atzberger, C., Jaffer, S., Knezevic, J., Sormunen, S., Young, R., Lisaius, M.C.,Immitzer,M.,Jackson,T.,Ball,J.,Coomes,D.A.,Madhavapeddy,A.,Blake, A., Keshav, S.: TESSERA: Temporal Embeddings of Surface Spectra for Earth Representation and Analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.20380 (2025),https:// arxiv.org/abs/2506.20380

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Flores-Anderson, A., Herndon, K., Thapa, R., Cherrington, E.: The SAR Hand- book: Comprehensive Methodologies for Forest Monitoring and Biomass Estima- tion (04 2019).https://doi.org/10.25966/nr2c-s697

    work page doi:10.25966/nr2c-s697 2019

  8. [8]

    In: IGARSS 2024 - 2024 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sens- ing Symposium

    Francis, A., Czerkawski, M.: Major TOM: Expandable Datasets for Earth Obser- vation. In: IGARSS 2024 - 2024 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sens- ing Symposium. pp. 2935–2940 (2024).https://doi.org/10.1109/IGARSS53475. 2024.10640760

    arXiv 2024

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.12104 (2025),https://arxiv.org/ abs/2511.12104

    Glazer, T., Hacheme, G.Q., Zaytar, A., Marotti, L., Michaels, A., Tadesse, G.A., White, K., Dodhia, R., Zolli, A., Becker-Reshef, I., Lavista Ferres, J.M., Robin- son, C.: TEMPO: Global Temporal Building Density and Height Estimation from Satellite Imagery. arXiv preprint arXi...

    2025

  2. [10]

    Climate Policy20(9), 1112–1126 (2020).https://doi.org/ 10.1080/14693062.2020.1781035

    Haya, B., Cullenward, D., Strong, A.L., Grubert, E., Heilmayr, R., Sivas, D.A., Wara, M.: Managing uncertainty in carbon offsets: insights from California’s stan- dardized approach. Climate Policy20(9), 1112–1126 (2020).https://doi.org/ 10.1080/14693062.2020.1781035

    2020

  3. [11]

    Nature Communications14(1) (Jul 2023)

    Herfort, B., Lautenbach, S., Porto de Albuquerque, J., Anderson, J., Zipf, A.: A spatio-temporal analysis investigating completeness and inequalities of global urban building data in openstreetmap. Nature Communications14(1) (Jul 2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-39698...

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.13655 (2025),https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.13655 Best Practices for EO Maps 11

    Herzog, H., Bastani, F., Zhang, Y., Tseng, G., Redmon, J., Sablon, H., Park, R., Morrison, J., Buraczynski, A., Farley, K., Hansen, J., Howe, A., Johnson, P.A., Otterlee, M., Schmitt, T., Pitelka, H., Daspit, S., Ratner, R., Wilhelm, C., Wood, S., Jacobi, M., Kerner, H., Shelh...

    2025

  5. [13]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.12219 (2018),https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1805.12219

    Huang, B., Reichman, D., Collins, L.M., Bradbury, K., Malof, J.M.: Tiling and Stitching Segmentation Output for Remote Sensing: Basic Challenges and Recom- mendations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.12219 (2018),https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1805.12219

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Jakubik, J., Roy, S., Phillips, C.E., Fraccaro, P., Godwin, D., Zadrozny, B., Szwar- cman, D., Gomes, C., Nyirjesy, G., Edwards, B., Kimura, D., Simumba, N., Chu, L., Mukkavilli, S.K., Lambhate, D., Das, K., Bangalore, R., Oliveira, D., Muszyn- ski, M., Ankur, K., Ramasubraman...

    2023 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    Remote Sensing of En- vironment330, 114951 (2025).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2025.114951, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2025.114951

    Johnson, L.K., Domke, G.M., Stehman, S.V., Mahoney, M.J., Beier, C.M.: From pixels to parcels: Flexible, practical small-area uncertainty estimation for spa- tial averages obtained from aboveground biomass maps. Remote Sensing of En- vironment330, 114951 (2025).https://doi.org...

    2025

  8. [16]

    In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

    Lakshminarayanan, B., Pritzel, A., Blundell, C.: Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensembles. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. pp. 6405–6416 (2017),https://proceedings.neurips.cc/ paper _ files / paper / 2017 / file / 9ef2ed...

    2017

  9. [17]

    Nature Ecology & Evolution7, 1778–1789 (2023).https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02206-6,https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559- 023-02206-6

    Lang, N., Jetz, W., Schindler, K., Wegner, J.D.: A High-Resolution Canopy Height Model of the Earth. Nature Ecology & Evolution7, 1778–1789 (2023).https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02206-6,https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559- 023-02206-6

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    Science Advances 9(37) (Sep 2023).https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adh4097,http://dx.doi

    Liu, S., Brandt, M., Nord-Larsen, T., Chave, J., Reiner, F., Lang, N., Tong, X., Ciais, P., Igel, C., Pascual, A., Guerra-Hernandez, J., Li, S., Mugabowindekwe, M., Saatchi, S., Yue, Y., Chen, Z., Fensholt, R.: The overlooked contribution of trees outside forests to tree cover...

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    Na- ture Communications17(1) (Jan 2026).https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026- 68996-y,http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-68996-y

    Lusk,D.,Wolf,S.,Svidzinska,D.,Dormann,C.F.,Kattge,J.,Bruelheide,H.,Saba- tini, F.M., Damasceno, G., Moreno Martínez, Á., Violle, C., Hending, D., Hähn, G.J.A., Tabeni, S., Phartyal, S., Gonçalves, F., Kreft, H., Schmidt, M., Chen, H., Güler, B., Dolezal, J., Pielech, R., Guido...

    2026

  12. [20]

    Nature Communications16(1) (Jul 2025)

    Misra, A., White, K., Nsutezo, S.F., Straka, W., Lavista, J.: Mapping global floods with 10 years of satellite radar data. Nature Communications16(1) (Jul 2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-60973-1,http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ s41467-025-60973-1

    2025 doi

  13. [21]

    The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote 12 G

    Montero, D., Mahecha, M.D., Aybar, C., Mosig, C., Wieneke, S.: Facilitating ad- vanced Sentinel-2 analysis through a simplified computation of Nadir BRDF Ad- justed Reflectance. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote 12 G. Sialelli et al. Sensing and Spatial ...

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    Mosig, C., Kattenborn, T., Montero Loaiza, D., Vanja-Jehle, J., Brandt, J., Jacobs, N., Khanal, S., Xing, E., Schwartz, M., Muller-Landau, H.C., Beloiu, M., Bozzini, A., Cheng, Y., Ganz, K., Grüning, B., Hartmann, H., Hempel, J., Horion, S., Junttila, S., Korznikov, K., Kraeme...

    2026

  15. [23]

    Sci- entific Data12(1) (Nov 2025).https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-06097-z, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-06097-z

    Neumann, M., Raichuk, A., Jiang, Y., Rey, M., Stanimirova, R., Sims, M.J., Carter, S., Goldman, E., Anderson, K., Poklukar, P., Tarrio, K., Lesiv, M., Fritz, S., Clinton, N., Stanton, C., Morris, D., Purves, D.: Natural forests of the world – a 2020 baseline for deforestation ...

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    Remote Sensing of Environment148, 42–57 (May 2014).https://doi.org/10

    Olofsson, P., Foody, G.M., Herold, M., Stehman, S.V., Woodcock, C.E., Wulder, M.A.: Good practices for estimating area and assessing accuracy of land change. Remote Sensing of Environment148, 42–57 (May 2014).https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.rse.2014.02.015,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016...

    2014 doi

  17. [25]

    In: 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW)

    Pasquarella, V.J., Brown, C.F., Czerwinski, W., Rucklidge, W.J.: Comprehensive quality assessment of optical satellite imagery using weakly supervised video learn- ing. In: 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW). p. 2125–2135. IEE...

    2023

  18. [26]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.21421 (2026),https://arxiv.org/ abs/2602.21421

    Pauls, J., Schrödter, K., Ligensa, S., Schwartz, M., Turan, B., Zimmer, M., Saatchi, S., Pokutta, S., Ciais, P., Gieseke, F.: ECHOSAT: Estimating Canopy Height Over Space and Time. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.21421 (2026),https://arxiv.org/ abs/2602.21421

    2026

  19. [27]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01076 (2024),https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.01076

    Pauls, J., Zimmer, M., Kelly, U.M., Schwartz, M., Saatchi, S., Ciais, P., Pokutta, S., Brandt, M., Gieseke, F.: Estimating Canopy Height at Scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01076 (2024),https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.01076

    2024

  20. [28]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.19328 (2025),https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.19328

    Pauls, J., Zimmer, M., Turan, B., Saatchi, S., Ciais, P., Pokutta, S., Gieseke, F.: Capturing Temporal Dynamics in Large-Scale Canopy Tree Height Estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.19328 (2025),https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.19328

    2025

  21. [29]

    Ploton, P., Mortier, F., Réjou-Méchain, M., Barbier, N., Picard, N., Rossi, V., Dormann, C., Cornu, G., Viennois, G., Bayol, N., Lyapustin, A., Gourlet-Fleury, S., Pélissier, R.: Spatial validation reveals poor predictive performance of large- scale ecological mapping models. ...

    2020

  22. [30]

    Ecography40(8), 913–929 (Mar 2017).https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.02881,http://dx.doi.org/10

    Roberts, D.R., Bahn, V., Ciuti, S., Boyce, M.S., Elith, J., Guillera-Arroita, G., Hauenstein, S., Lahoz-Monfort, J.J., Schröder, B., Thuiller, W., Warton, D.I., Win- tle, B.A., Hartig, F., Dormann, C.F.: Cross-validation strategies for data with tem- poral, spatial, hierarchic...

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

    Romano, Y., Patterson, E., Candès, E.J.: Conformalized Quantile Regression. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. pp. 3543–3553 (2019),https: //papers.neurips.cc/paper/8613-conformalized-quantile-regression.pdf

    2019

  24. [32]

    ICCV (2021)

    Sainte Fare Garnot, V., Landrieu, L.: Panoptic segmentation of satellite image time series with convolutional temporal attention networks. ICCV (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Remote sensing of environment64(3), 331–344 (1998)

    Stehman, S.V., Czaplewski, R.L.: Design and analysis for thematic map accuracy assessment: fundamental principles. Remote sensing of environment64(3), 331–344 (1998)

    1998

  26. [34]

    Remote Sensing of Environment231, 111199 (Sep 2019).https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.05.018,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rse

    Stehman, S.V., Foody, G.M.: Key issues in rigorous accuracy assessment of land cover products. Remote Sensing of Environment231, 111199 (Sep 2019).https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.05.018,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rse. 2019.05.018

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    ACM Transactions on Spatial Algorithms and Systems11(4), 1–28 (Aug 2025)

    Stewart, A.J., Robinson, C., Corley, I.A., Ortiz, A., Lavista Ferres, J.M., Banerjee, A.: TorchGeo: Deep Learning With Geospatial Data. ACM Transactions on Spatial Algorithms and Systems11(4), 1–28 (Aug 2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    Remote Sensing of Environment300, 113888 (Jan 2024).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2023.113888,http://dx.doi.org/10

    Tolan, J., Yang, H.I., Nosarzewski, B., Couairon, G., Vo, H.V., Brandt, J., Spore, J.,Majumdar,S.,Haziza,D.,Vamaraju,J.,Moutakanni,T.,Bojanowski,P.,Johns, T., White, B., Tiecke, T., Couprie, C.: Very high resolution canopy height maps from rgb imagery using self-supervised vis...

    2024

  29. [37]

    Remote Sensing of Environment324, 114714 (2025)

    Tyukavina, A., Stehman, S.V., Pickens, A.H., Potapov, P., Hansen, M.C.: Practical global sampling methods for estimating area and map accuracy of land cover and change. Remote Sensing of Environment324, 114714 (2025)

    2025

  30. [38]

    Springer New York, NY, 1 edn

    Vovk, V., Gammerman, A., Shafer, G.: Algorithmic Learning in a Random World. Springer New York, NY, 1 edn. (2005).https://doi.org/10.1007/b106715

    2005 doi

  31. [39]

    Methods in Ecology and Evolution14, 1320–1332 (2023)

    Wadoux, A.C., Heuvelink, G.B.M.: Uncertainty of Spatial Averages and Totals of Natural Resource Maps. Methods in Ecology and Evolution14, 1320–1332 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.14106,https://doi.org/10.1111/2041- 210X.14106

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    Scientific Data3(1) (Mar 2016).https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18

    Wilkinson, M.D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I.J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J.W., da Silva Santos, L.B., Bourne, P.E., Bouw- man, J., Brookes, A.J., Clark, T., Crosas, M., Dillo, I., Dumon, O., Edmunds, S., Evelo, C.T., Finkers, R., Gonzalez-Bel...

    2016

  33. [41]

    Sialelli et al

    Zhang, R.: Making Convolutional Networks Shift-Invariant Again (2019).https: //doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1904.11486,https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.11486 14 G. Sialelli et al. A EO Data Providers T able 1:Overview of major Earth observation data providers.Online ops: whether server-si...

    2019 doi arXiv

  34. [42]

    Overlapping grid Patchi Patchi+1 overlap

  35. [43]

    cosine)•Smooth transitions •Blurs predictions in overlap zone •Complicates uncertainty propagation (b) Padding + crop to center

    Weighted merge weight profiles (e.g. cosine)•Smooth transitions •Blurs predictions in overlap zone •Complicates uncertainty propagation (b) Padding + crop to center

  36. [44]

    Expand with context patch padding

  37. [45]

    3:Two strategies for mitigating patch artifacts: (a) overlapping patches with weighted blending and (b) padding with center cropping

    Predict→crop kept discarded •No blending — preserves model output •Uncertainty maps remain faithful •Residual artifacts if receptive field<padding Fig. 3:Two strategies for mitigating patch artifacts: (a) overlapping patches with weighted blending and (b) padding with center c...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.