Hybrid Quantum CNN for Cross-Sensor Spaceborne Volcanic Thermal Activity Recognition Worldwide

Alessandro Grilli; Alessandro Sebastianelli; Claudia Corradino; Elisabetta Paladino; Federica Torrisi; Luigi Giannelli; Mattia Verducci; Tommaso Catuogno

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 15 references

Hybrid Quantum CNN for Cross-Sensor Spaceborne Volcanic Thermal Activity Recognition Worldwide

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A hybrid quantum–classical CNN, trained on Sentinel-2 imagery and evaluated without fine-tuning on Landsat-9, claims to outperform classical CNNs in volcanic thermal-activity classification while using far fewer trainable parameters.

desk verdict Original benchmark, but the cross-sensor headline rests on an undescribed Landsat-9 set and one split with no error bars — send to review, but condition acceptance on real fixes. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.00069 v1 pith:FPD67FTP submitted 2026-07-29 physics.geo-ph cs.LG

Claudia Corradino , Federica Torrisi , Alessandro Grilli , Tommaso Catuogno , Mattia Verducci , Elisabetta Paladino , Luigi Giannelli , Alessandro Sebastianelli This is my paper

classification physics.geo-phcs.LG

keywords quantummachinelearninghybridCNNvolcanicthermalactivitycross-sensorgeneralizationsatelliteimageryclassificationSentinel-2Landsat-9variationalcircuit

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

The paper tries to establish that replacing the final fully connected layers of a CNN with a small trainable quantum circuit improves classification of volcanic thermal activity from satellite imagery. On a balanced set of 800 images from five volcanoes, the 4-qubit hybrid model reaches 92.5% accuracy and 92% F1-score with about 2.5 million parameters, and the 2-qubit version transfers to Landsat-9 with an F1-score of 0.88, beating all classical baselines without fine-tuning. The authors argue that the quantum layer's high-dimensional Hilbert-space embedding yields more discriminative and more transferable features, and that this provides a path to on-board processing where compute, memory, and labeled data are scarce. Sympathetic readers would care because cross-sensor generalization and parameter efficiency are central obstacles in operational Earth observation.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the parameterized quantum circuit (PQC) used as a variational layer: a ZZFeatureMap encodes the classical feature vector into the amplitudes of n qubits via Hadamard and RZ rotations plus entangling ZZ interactions, and a RealAmplitudes ansatz of alternating RY rotations and CNOT gates produces a trainable output state. This maps inputs into a Hilbert space of dimension 2^n, giving exponentially large feature spaces for just 2–4 qubits. The paper claims this embedding is what enhances class separability, and the metric ϵrel = F1·Pmin/Pmodel is introduced to quantify how much performance each architecture extracts per trainable parameter.

What would settle it

Train a classical CNN whose final fully connected layer has exactly the same parameter count as the 2-qubit HQCNN (≈2.49M) with the same training schedule and evaluate on the same Landsat-9 set; if its F1-score equals or exceeds 0.88, the quantum layer's contribution is not necessary for the cross-sensor result. Alternatively, re-evaluate the 2-qubit HQCNN on a larger, publicly documented Landsat-9 test set and observe whether F1 remains above classical baselines.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that a hybrid quantum convolutional neural network—a classical AlexNet feature extractor feeding a parameterized quantum circuit—learns representations that separate volcanic thermal scenarios better than classical fully connected classifiers. In the reported experiments, the 4-qubit configuration achieves the best overall accuracy (92.5%) and F1-score (0.92) on a Sentinel-2 test set, while the 2-qubit configuration achieves the highest cross-sensor F1-score (0.88) on Landsat-9 data without any fine-tuning, surpassing all classical CNN baselines. The authors interpret this as evidence that quantum feature processing packs more discriminative information per

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Landsat-9 evaluation set is a valid, labeled, representative held-out target domain; the paper does not report its size, labeling source, acquisition dates, or class distribution, so the cross-sensor F1-scores could be computed on a small or biased sample.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the reported results hold, volcanic thermal-activity classifiers can match or beat larger classical CNNs with only a few million parameters, easing deployment on memory-limited satellite hardware.
The 2-qubit HQCNN's cross-sensor F1 of 0.88 suggests that compact quantum representations transfer across sensors with similar spectral bands (NIR/SWIR) without retraining.
Higher-capacity quantum circuits (4 qubits) may overfit to the training sensor, so small circuits can be preferable for cross-sensor generalization.
The models show steeper learning curves in low-data regimes, implying that quantum layers make more efficient use of limited labeled imagery.
Robustness tests with rotated images show smaller performance drops for HQCNNs, suggesting the learned representations are less sensitive to geometric variations.

Reading between the lines

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

The claimed quantum advantage may be partly an architectural effect: replacing a large fully connected layer with a small, regularized bottleneck could improve generalization regardless of whether the layer is literally quantum; a classical bottleneck with the same parameter budget should be tested as a control.
Since all quantum simulations run on classical hardware, any evidence of 'quantum enhancement' here is actually about the inductive bias of the parameterized circuit structure, not about noise-free or entangled quantum hardware; real-device tests with noise would be needed to claim an on-board NISQ advantage.
The efficiency metric ϵrel normalizes by the smallest model's parameters, which inherently favors tiny models; cross-architecture comparisons would be more informative if they controlled for training budget and architecture depth.
If the Landsat-9 test set is small or class-imbalanced, the reported 0.88 F1 could be fragile; obtaining a larger, documented Landsat-9 benchmark would test the cross-sensor claim more conclusively.

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

Quick take: this paper has a genuinely new benchmark — no-fine-tune transfer of a hybrid quantum CNN from Sentinel-2 to Landsat-9 for four volcanic thermal classes — and an original empirical observation that the 2-qubit circuit transfers better than the 4-qubit one. That is a legitimate new result, not just a re-run of the group's earlier architecture. The paper is clearly written, the volcanic monitoring framing is sensible, and the parameter-count and sample-efficiency comparisons are the right kind of thing to look at for onboard processing. Credit where it is due: the authors are honest that they simulate the quantum circuit, and the central classification numbers are plausible.

Now the soft spots, and they are in proportion to how much the paper asks us to believe. The Landsat-9 evaluation set is never described. Section II.A details the Sentinel-2 training data (800 images, named volcanoes, classes), but Section III.C.2 introduces the L9 OLI test set with no size, class distribution, labeling source, acquisition dates, or spatial/temporal relation to the S2 data. The L9 F1 of 0.88 for the 2-qubit HQCNN and the sharp drop to 0.60 for the 4-qubit model are exactly what you would expect from a small or high-variance evaluation set. The stress-test note holds: the cross-sensor generalization claim is load-bearing and it is currently unsupported.

Second, there are no error bars, multiple seeds, or repeated splits anywhere. The comparison is a single 70/15/15 random split. For a 2-qubit circuit beating a 4096-node network by nine F1 points on an unseen sensor, the reader needs to know the variance. Third, the classical baselines replace the quantum layer with a fully connected layer of varying size but do not match the PQC's bottleneck/regularization effect, so part of the quantum advantage could just be a smaller effective hypothesis space. Fourth, no code or data is released, which matters more here than usual because the L9 dataset is invisible.

I would not go so far as to call the paper unserious. The parameter-efficiency and sample-efficiency evidence is internally consistent, and the 2-qubit > 4-qubit result is exactly the kind of non-obvious empirical finding worth testing. But as written, the central quantum-enhancement-for-transfer claim is not yet established.

Who is this for? People working on QML for Earth observation, and anyone designing small classifiers for onboard satellite processing. A serious referee should see it — the questions it raises are real — but the authors need to supply the L9 data description, repeated runs, a matched regularized classical baseline, and ideally code/data before the claim can be accepted. Yes, send to peer review; expect revision.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a Hybrid Quantum AlexNet (HQCNN) for four-class volcanic thermal activity recognition. A classical AlexNet backbone is combined with a parameterized quantum circuit (ZZFeatureMap + RealAmplitudes) and evaluated on 800 Sentinel-2 images, comparing 2- and 4-qubit variants with classical AlexNet classifiers whose fully connected layer size varies. The central claimed results are that the 4-qubit HQCNN gives the best overall accuracy (92.5%) and F1 (92%), the 2-qubit HQCNN gives the best Landsat-9 cross-sensor F1 (0.88), and the HQCNNs achieve better parameter and sample efficiency than the classical baselines. The paper concludes that quantum feature representations improve transferability and are compatible with compact NISQ devices.

Significance. If the empirical claims were statistically supported, this would be a useful contribution to quantum machine learning for Earth observation: it explicitly quantifies parameter efficiency, evaluates cross-sensor transfer, and shows competitive performance with only 2–4 qubits. The paper's strengths are its systematic architecture comparison, the inclusion of learning-curve and efficiency metrics, and a clear statement that experiments are simulated. However, the evidence rests on a single small dataset, a single train/validation/test split, no repeated seeds, and an undescribed Landsat-9 evaluation set. These gaps make the central cross-sensor generalization claim not yet established.

major comments (5)

[Sec. II.A and Sec. III.C.2, Table II] The Landsat-9 OLI evaluation set is never described. Section II.A details only the Sentinel-2 training dataset (800 images, five volcanoes). There is no size, class distribution, labeling source, acquisition date range, or spatial/temporal relation to the S2 data. The reported L9 F1=0.88 for the 2-qubit HQCNN and 0.60 for the 4-qubit HQCNN are therefore uninterpretable: they could be computed on a handful of patches or on scenes overlapping the S2 footprint. The paper must provide a full dataset card for the L9 set, per-class L9 F1 scores, and the definition of F1 (macro vs. micro). Without this, the central cross-sensor claim is unsupported.
[Sec. III.A, Tables I and II] All experiments use a single 70/15/15 split with no multiple seeds or error bars. With 800 images, the test set is only about 120 images, so per-class F1 differences (e.g., 0.82 vs. 0.85 or 0.88 vs. 0.89) are within expected noise. The non-monotonic L9 results (0.88 for 2-qubit, 0.60 for 4-qubit) further suggest high variance. The authors should report confidence intervals, k-fold or repeated-seed results, and a statistical comparison (e.g., McNemar's test) before claiming that HQCNNs outperform classical baselines.
[Sec. II.B and Sec. III.A] The classical control is not matched to the HQCNN architecture. The text states that the PQC is replaced by a fully connected layer of varying size, but this does not isolate the effect of the quantum layer: the HQCNN contains a projection layer, a nonlinear PQC, and a final classification layer. A classical baseline with the same bottleneck dimension, nonlinearity, and regularization should be included. The near-identical parameter counts of CNN(2 nodes) and HQCNN(2 qubits) with very different F1 scores could be due to the PQC's specific inductive bias or to training dynamics; additional analysis (e.g., representation similarity or ablation of the PQC as a random nonlinear layer) is needed.
[Sec. II.B] The parameterized quantum circuit is underspecified. The text names ZZFeatureMap and RealAmplitudes but does not state the number of feature-map repetitions, the number of variational layers, the CNOT entanglement pattern, the number of trainable quantum parameters, or how expectation values are converted to the classification layer. These details are essential for reproducibility and for interpreting why the 2-qubit circuit transfers better than the 4-qubit circuit. Please provide the full circuit specification and a parameter count for the PQC.
[Sec. III.B, Eq. (1)-(3)] The efficiency claims are based on point estimates from single learning curves. The nAULC and PW-nAULC definitions depend on the chosen range of training sizes and on the minimum and maximum accuracies from one run. Similarly, epsilon_rel uses Pmin among the investigated architectures, so the ranking can change if the architecture set changes. The authors should report repeated runs and confidence intervals for these metrics, and clarify that they measure parameter count only, not simulated quantum inference cost.

minor comments (6)

[Sec. III.A] The phrase 'F1-score of only 0.79%' should read '0.79'. The numerical format is inconsistent throughout (e.g., 0.92 vs. 92%).
[Sec. II.A] There are missing spaces in 'theCopernicus Sentinel-2mis- sion' and 'derived from theCopernicus'. Also, the claim of a 'balanced benchmark' should state whether the 800 images are balanced across the four classes and across the five volcanoes.
[Sec. III.C.1] The class-wise analysis says 'CSC and ETA are consistently the easiest class' — should be 'classes'. More importantly, no per-class L9 scores are given, which are needed to support the cross-sensor claim.
[Sec. III.B, Eq. (1)] Define whether F1 in Eq. (1) is overall macro-F1 or class-averaged. Also note that epsilon_rel is sensitive to the arbitrary inclusion of the 2-node CNN, which sets Pmin.
[References] Reference [14] is a placeholder with 'arXiv:2026.xxxxx'; it should be updated before publication. The novelty relative to the authors' earlier architecture in [10] and the companion paper [14] should be stated explicitly in the Introduction.
[General wording] The abstract and conclusions use 'worldwide' and 'global scale', but the dataset is limited to five volcanoes. Please temper these claims to match the actual data coverage.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the empirical benchmarks are self-contained; the main validity caveat is an underspecified Landsat-9 evaluation set, which is a data-quality issue, not derivation circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical benchmarks obtained by training HQCNN and classical CNN models on Sentinel-2 data and evaluating them on a held-out S2 test split and on Landsat-9 imagery without fine-tuning. The efficiency metrics in Eqs. (1)-(3) (epsilon_rel, nAULC, PW-nAULC) are descriptive summaries of measured F1-scores and learning curves; they are not fitted inputs that define the results, nor are they used as predictions. The quantum circuit components (ZZFeatureMap, RealAmplitudes) and AlexNet backbone are standard building blocks, and citations [10], [14], [15] to the authors' prior work are used for architectural provenance and as complementary context, not as the load-bearing proof of the reported cross-sensor advantage. No uniqueness theorem or self-citation chain is invoked to force the architecture choice, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The paper's main weakness is external to circularity: the Landsat-9 OLI evaluation set is never described in terms of size, labels, acquisition dates, or class distribution, so the reported Landsat-9 F1=0.88 is difficult to interpret. That is an experimental-validity concern, not a circular-derivation concern.

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

The evaluation assumes 2^n-dimensional quantum embeddings provide a learning advantage and that the Landsat-9 set is a valid held-out target domain. Several key settings (qubit count, circuit depth, training schedule, random seed) are chosen by hand or omitted, and no code/data are released, so the central comparison is not isolated from these choices.

free parameters (4)

number of qubits = 2 and 4
The choice between 2 and 4 qubits changes the ranking: 4-qubit is best overall, 2-qubit is best cross-sensor. No selection criterion is reported; results may be sensitive to this choice.
variational layer count / circuit depth = not reported
The RealAmplitudes ansatz repetition count is not stated in the paper; it directly sets expressivity and the reported parameter counts.
training schedule (batch size, epochs) = not reported
The paper lists Adam and lr=1e-3 but not batch size or epochs, which materially affect the sample-efficiency learning curves and final accuracies.
random split / seeds = single 70/15/15 split
No random seed is reported and only one split is used, so all accuracy comparisons lack uncertainty estimates.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Embedding features into 2^n-dimensional Hilbert space with a PQC improves class separability
Section II-B states this as the motivation; no proof or ablation isolates this effect.
domain assumption Sentinel-2 and Landsat-9 NIR/SWIR bands are sufficiently similar to allow direct transfer without fine-tuning
Section II-A assumes this; the paper notes resolution and spectral response differences but provides no quantitative justification.
domain assumption The Cariello et al. taxonomy and manual labels are correct for the 800 images
Section II-A relies on [6] for labels; no independent validation of labels is described.
domain assumption A simulated noiseless PQC is a valid proxy for NISQ hardware for conclusions about quantum enhancement
Section IV draws conclusions about onboard NISQ deployment from simulations; noise/coherence effects are explicitly deferred to future work.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hybrid Quantum CNN for Cross-Sensor Spaceborne Volcanic Thermal Activity Recognition Worldwide." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FPD67FTP

@misc{pith2026260800069,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hybrid Quantum CNN for Cross-Sensor Spaceborne Volcanic Thermal Activity Recognition Worldwide},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FPD67FTP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.00069}
}

read the original abstract

As Earth Observation (EO) enters the Big Data era, the exponential volume of daily satellite imagery poses significant computational and storage challenges for classical Deep Learning (DL) models. Moreover, current approaches often struggle to generalize across heterogeneous sensors and volcanic environments while requiring large labeled datasets and substantial computational resources. These limitations are particularly critical for emerging On-Board Processing (OBP) applications, where memory, computational power, and annotated data are inherently limited. This work proposes a Hybrid Quantum AlexNet architecture for cross-sensor recognition of volcanic thermal activity at the global scale. The proposed model combines a classical convolutional backbone for high-level spatial features extraction with a parameterized quantum circuit (PQC) acting as a variational layer. By embedding high-level image representations into a high-dimensional Hilbert space, the quantum layer learns task-specific representations that enhance feature discrimination. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed hybrid quantum model learns more discriminative feature representations, leading to improved cross-sensor transferability and robustness across heterogeneous volcanic environments using fewer trainable parameters and reduced training data than its classical counterpart.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00069 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Scheme of the proposed HQCNN: classical AlexNet backbone with a parameterized quantum layer. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Performances as a function of the number of trainable parameters for test scenes with similar (a) and different (b) orientations than the training data. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Models accuracy for different training dataset sizes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: L9 OLI classifications obtained with the proposed 2-qubit HQCNN. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

[1]

Big Earth Data: Disruptive Changes in Earth Observation Data Management and Analysis?

M. Sudmanns, D. Tiede, S. Lang, H. Bergstedt, G. Trost, H. Augustin, A. Baraldi, and T. Blaschke, “Big Earth Data: Disruptive Changes in Earth Observation Data Management and Analysis?”International Journal of Digital Earth, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 832–850, 2020

2020
[2]

M. P. Del Rosso, A. Sebastianelli, S. L. Ullo,et al.,Artificial Intelligence Applied to Satellite-Based Remote Sensing Data for Earth Observation. London, U.K.: IET, 2021

2021
[3]

Artificial Intelligence to Advance Earth Observation: A Review of Models, Recent Trends, and Pathways Forward,

D. Tuia, K. Schindler, B. Demir, X. X. Zhu, M. Kochupillai, S. D ˇzeroski, J. N. van Rijn, H. H. Hoos, F. Del Frate, M. Datcu,et al., “Artificial Intelligence to Advance Earth Observation: A Review of Models, Recent Trends, and Pathways Forward,”IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine, 2024

2024
[4]

A. J. L. Harris,Thermal Remote Sensing of Active Volcanoes: A User’s Manual. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2013

2013
[5]

Detection of Subtle Thermal Anomalies: Deep Learning Applied to the ASTER Global V olcano Dataset,

C. Corradino, M. S. Ramsey, S. Pailot-Bonn ´etat, A. J. L. Harris, and C. Del Negro, “Detection of Subtle Thermal Anomalies: Deep Learning Applied to the ASTER Global V olcano Dataset,”IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 61, pp. 1–15, 2023

2023
[6]

Cascading Machine Learning to Monitor V olcanic Thermal Activity Using Orbital Infrared Data: From Detection to Quantitative Evaluation,

S. Cariello, C. Corradino, F. Torrisi, and C. Del Negro, “Cascading Machine Learning to Monitor V olcanic Thermal Activity Using Orbital Infrared Data: From Detection to Quantitative Evaluation,”Remote Sens- ing, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 7712, 2024

2024
[7]

Quantum Ma- chine Learning for Remote Sensing: Exploring Potential and Challenges,

A. Miroszewski, J. Nalepa, B. Le Saux, and J. Mielczarek, “Quantum Ma- chine Learning for Remote Sensing: Exploring Potential and Challenges,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.07626, 2023

arXiv 2023
[8]

Abbas, A., Sutter, D., Zoufal, C., Lucchi, A., Figalli, A., & Woerner, S. (2021). The power of quantum neural networks. Nature computational science, 1(6), 403-409

2021

Show all 15 references

[9]

Quantum Machine Learning for Earth Observation: A Review and Future Prospects,

A. Sebastianelli, F. Mauro, A. Delilbasic, P. Di Stasio, F. Fan, G. Meoni, G. Cavallaro, X. X. Zhu, P. Gamba, and S. L. Ullo, “Quantum Machine Learning for Earth Observation: A Review and Future Prospects,”Au- thorea Preprints, 2025

2025
[10]

On Circuit-Based Hybrid Quantum Neural Networks for Remote Sensing Imagery Classification,

A. Sebastianelli, D. A. Zaidenberg, D. Spiller, B. Le Saux, and S. L. Ullo, “On Circuit-Based Hybrid Quantum Neural Networks for Remote Sensing Imagery Classification,”IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, vol. 15, pp. 565–580, 2021

2021
[11]

Accuracy, Noise, and Scalability in Quantum Computation: Strategies for the NISQ Era and Beyond,

M. Kec ¸eci, “Accuracy, Noise, and Scalability in Quantum Computation: Strategies for the NISQ Era and Beyond,”Open Sci. Artic., 2025

2025
[12]

Advantages and Bottlenecks of Quantum Machine Learning for Remote Sensing,

D. A. Zaidenberg, A. Sebastianelli, D. Spiller, B. Le Saux, and S. L. Ullo, “Advantages and Bottlenecks of Quantum Machine Learning for Remote Sensing,” inProc. IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS), 2021, pp. 5680–5683

2021
[13]

Understanding Quantum Mechanics Through Hilbert Spaces: Applications in Quantum Computing,

M. Kec ¸eci, “Understanding Quantum Mechanics Through Hilbert Spaces: Applications in Quantum Computing,”Preprint, 2025

2025
[14]

V olcanic Clouds Detection through QCNN and Geostationary Satellite Multispectral Imagery

F. Torrisi, C. Corradino, A. Grilli, T. Catuogno, M. Verducci, A. Sebas- tianelli, L. Giannelli, and E. Paladino, “V olcanic Clouds Detection through QCNN and Geostationary Satellite Multispectral Imagery” arXiv preprint arXiv:2026.xxxxx, 2026

2026
[15]

On Quantum Hyperparameters Selection in Hybrid Classifiers for Earth Observation Data,

A. Sebastianelli, M. P. Del Rosso, S. L. Ullo, and P. Gamba, “On Quantum Hyperparameters Selection in Hybrid Classifiers for Earth Observation Data,”IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, vol. 20, pp. 1–5, 2023

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Big Earth Data: Disruptive Changes in Earth Observation Data Management and Analysis?

M. Sudmanns, D. Tiede, S. Lang, H. Bergstedt, G. Trost, H. Augustin, A. Baraldi, and T. Blaschke, “Big Earth Data: Disruptive Changes in Earth Observation Data Management and Analysis?”International Journal of Digital Earth, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 832–850, 2020

2020

[2] [2]

M. P. Del Rosso, A. Sebastianelli, S. L. Ullo,et al.,Artificial Intelligence Applied to Satellite-Based Remote Sensing Data for Earth Observation. London, U.K.: IET, 2021

2021

[3] [3]

Artificial Intelligence to Advance Earth Observation: A Review of Models, Recent Trends, and Pathways Forward,

D. Tuia, K. Schindler, B. Demir, X. X. Zhu, M. Kochupillai, S. D ˇzeroski, J. N. van Rijn, H. H. Hoos, F. Del Frate, M. Datcu,et al., “Artificial Intelligence to Advance Earth Observation: A Review of Models, Recent Trends, and Pathways Forward,”IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine, 2024

2024

[4] [4]

A. J. L. Harris,Thermal Remote Sensing of Active Volcanoes: A User’s Manual. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2013

2013

[5] [5]

Detection of Subtle Thermal Anomalies: Deep Learning Applied to the ASTER Global V olcano Dataset,

C. Corradino, M. S. Ramsey, S. Pailot-Bonn ´etat, A. J. L. Harris, and C. Del Negro, “Detection of Subtle Thermal Anomalies: Deep Learning Applied to the ASTER Global V olcano Dataset,”IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 61, pp. 1–15, 2023

2023

[6] [6]

Cascading Machine Learning to Monitor V olcanic Thermal Activity Using Orbital Infrared Data: From Detection to Quantitative Evaluation,

S. Cariello, C. Corradino, F. Torrisi, and C. Del Negro, “Cascading Machine Learning to Monitor V olcanic Thermal Activity Using Orbital Infrared Data: From Detection to Quantitative Evaluation,”Remote Sens- ing, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 7712, 2024

2024

[7] [7]

Quantum Ma- chine Learning for Remote Sensing: Exploring Potential and Challenges,

A. Miroszewski, J. Nalepa, B. Le Saux, and J. Mielczarek, “Quantum Ma- chine Learning for Remote Sensing: Exploring Potential and Challenges,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.07626, 2023

arXiv 2023

[8] [8]

Abbas, A., Sutter, D., Zoufal, C., Lucchi, A., Figalli, A., & Woerner, S. (2021). The power of quantum neural networks. Nature computational science, 1(6), 403-409

2021