Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 52 references

SwissCrop25: A National Multi-Year Benchmark for Operational Crop Mapping

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Seven-year national crop benchmark shows a 12-point model gap

desk verdict SwissCrop25 is a genuinely new and well-built benchmark; the headline model gap is real but likely inflated by test-set configuration selection, so treat the rankings as provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09497 v1 pith:CQDIR2KT submitted 2026-08-10 cs.CV

Thomas Lauber , Mehmet Ozgur Turkoglu , Sélène Ledain , Helge Aasen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords croptypemappingbenchmarkdatasetremotesensingtemporalgeneralisationleave-one-year-outevaluationsatelliteimagetimeseriesfine-grainedclassificationgrowingdegreedays
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 introduces SwissCrop25, a national-scale dataset pairing Sentinel-2 image time series and daily temperature records with 73 crop classes and 5 non-crop land-cover classes across seven Swiss growing seasons (2019–2025). The authors' central claim is that operational crop mapping cannot be evaluated with single-year benchmarks, predefined cropland masks, or coarse taxonomies; performance must be measured across held-out years and on the full landscape. Using a five-fold leave-one-year-out protocol, they report that the spatio-temporal transformer TSViT reaches 48.1% macro-mIoU versus 35.8% for the convolutional temporal-attention model U-TAE, with the fine-tuned Earth-observation foundation model Galileo at 30.4%. They argue these gaps were previously hidden and that temperature-based phenological alignment improves cross-year robustness. If correct, SwissCrop25 provides a testbed for predicting how crop-mapping systems will behave when deployed on future growing seasons.

What carries the argument

The central object is the SwissCrop25 benchmark itself, with its leave-one-year-out (LOYO) protocol: five folds, each holding out one complete growing season for testing, using the immediately preceding year for validation, and training on the remaining years. The label space pairs a 73-class crop taxonomy with five non-crop land-cover classes rasterised at 10 m by fractional coverage. The distinctive mechanism for temporal generalisation is cumulative growing degree days (GDD), heat accumulated above 0 °C from 1 January, which supports two interventions: T3S, which re-samples observations into equal thermal-time bins, and thermal positional encoding (TPE), which replaces calendar-day positions with a sinusoidal function of GDD. These align equivalent phenological stages across years and let the authors attribute part of the cross-year error to weather-driven phenological shifts.

What would settle it

Take a random sample of SwissCrop25 parcels and compare each declared label with the crop actually harvested or observed on the ground; if the disagreement rate, especially for silage versus grain maize and the meadow management classes, is large enough to shift per-class IoU by more than a few points, the reported rankings and rare-class findings would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is that evaluation design changes which crop-mapping model looks best. On SwissCrop25, all three architectures score within about five percentage points on coarse three-class land-use categories and on overall accuracy, but the ranking opens sharply as the taxonomy deepens: at the 65-class leaf level TSViT leads U-TAE by 12.3 percentage points macro-mIoU and by 15 points macro-F1. Joint cropland delineation shows all models miss 8–11% of agricultural area, a systematic shortfall hidden by benchmarks that assume a perfect cropland mask. The 2024 split, with an anomalously warm winter, is hardest for every model, and re-indexing the time series by cumulative growing degree days plus thermal positional encoding recovers minority winter cereals such as Triticale and Rye. In-season evaluation shows a timing trade-off: U-TAE is stronger early in the season, while TSViT overtakes later through rare-class discrimination.

Load-bearing premise

Every conclusion in the benchmark rests on treating farmers' annual declared land-use intentions as true end-of-season crop labels at 10 m resolution, which the paper does not verify against field checks or harvest records.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Operational crop-mapping systems evaluated on SwissCrop25's leave-one-year-out splits get a realistic estimate of how they will perform on a future growing season, including weather-driven distribution shifts.
  • Rankings produced by single-year benchmarks or benchmarks that assume a predefined cropland mask are unreliable indicators of operational performance.
  • Adding temperature-derived phenological information improves cross-year robustness for spatio-temporal transformer models, including recovery of minority winter cereals in anomalously warm years.
  • In-season deployment should match the model to the deadline: U-TAE is preferable early in the season, while TSViT is preferable later when rare-class accuracy matters.
  • Earth-observation foundation models, at least at the evaluated scale, are not competitive with domain-specific crop mapping models on this benchmark even after fine-tuning.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The administrative labels the authors flag as noisy could be reused as a known-noise testbed: errors such as grain-versus-silage maize are partly declared-intent mistakes, so a model's confusion pattern on those classes quantifies label noise rather than pure spectral similarity.
  • The crop-agnostic base temperature of 0 °C for GDD may blunt phenological alignment for warm-season crops; using crop-group-specific thermal time could widen the robustness gains the paper observes.
  • A natural next benchmark variant would hold out a geographic region as well as a year, testing whether temperature-based alignment transfers to landscapes the model has never seen.
  • The early-season/late-season trade-off suggests a deployment system could switch from U-TAE to TSViT as the season progresses, though the authors do not test such a hybrid.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper introduces SwissCrop25, a national-scale crop mapping benchmark for Switzerland covering the 2019–2025 growing seasons, with Sentinel-2 time series, daily temperature/GDD data, a label space of 73 agricultural classes plus 5 non-crop land-cover classes, and a leave-one-year-out (LOYO) evaluation protocol that jointly evaluates cropland delineation and fine-grained crop classification. The authors benchmark U-TAE, TSViT, and Galileo (nano/base, fine-tuned and frozen), with and without thermal-time sampling (T3S) and thermal positional encoding (TPE). The headline results are that TSViT reaches 48.1% macro-mIoU versus 35.8% for U-TAE and 30.4% for Galileo-nano; that TPE improves TSViT substantially (+10.7pp mIoU) but U-TAE only marginally (+1.2pp); and that U-TAE leads early in the season while TSViT gains a late-season advantage on rare classes. The dataset and code are publicly released.

Significance. SwissCrop25 is potentially a valuable community resource: it is, to my knowledge, the first pixel-level multi-year national crop mapping dataset with a strict LOYO protocol, explicit non-crop classes derived from independent land-cover data, fine-grained grassland management types, and accompanying temperature data. The paper's strengths include the public data release, the reproducible preprocessing pipeline, per-class results and confusion matrices in the supplement, naive temporal baselines that contextualize the LOYO protocol, and the in-season evaluation framework. The central scientific claims, however, rest on two points that need further support: the configuration-selection protocol behind the headline numbers, and the unquantified label noise of the administrative ground truth. If those points are addressed, the benchmark and its evaluation would be a solid contribution to operational crop mapping.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Tables 3 and 4] The headline results in Table 3 use the best-performing configuration per architecture, selected on the LOYO test years (T3S+TPE for U-TAE and TSViT, T3S alone for Galileo-nano). Because Table 4 shows that TPE improves TSViT by +10.7pp mIoU but only +1.2pp for U-TAE, the reported 12.3pp TSViT–U-TAE gap (48.1 vs 35.8) is at least partly a consequence of a configuration choice made after seeing test-set outcomes, rather than a property of the architectures alone. This also inflates the claim that temperature-derived phenological information improves robustness. I ask the authors to report the comparison under a common configuration (e.g., the DOY baseline or T3S alone for all models) and, if TPE is retained in the headline, to select it using only the validation year in each LOYO split and to state that selection rule explicitly.
  2. [Section 3.1 and Supp. Tab. 10] The LNF labels record declared planting intent, not verified end-of-season crop type, and the paper acknowledges this but does not quantify the resulting label noise. Since the benchmark's distinctive claims concern fine-grained and rare classes (e.g., Sorghum 30.9 vs 4.8, Hemp 17.7 vs 0.0, Rye 67.6 vs 55.4 in Supp. Tab. 10), unquantified and possibly non-random administrative errors could drive part of the observed per-class differences. Please provide at least one of the following: (a) a validation subset compared against field inspections or harvest records, (b) a label-noise sensitivity analysis that perturbs the administrative labels and re-runs the benchmark, or (c) an explicit per-class noise model with reasonable bounds. Without this, the central claim that the benchmark reveals differences in crop mapping skill is not fully established.
  3. [Section 4.2, Table 4] The asymmetric effect of thermal positional encoding is surprisingly large and model-specific: TPE adds +10.7pp mIoU for TSViT but only +1.2pp for U-TAE. This asymmetry is load-bearing for the temporal-generalisation claim, but the paper does not analyse what TPE actually changes (e.g., whether the effect interacts with T3S sampling, with the variable-length sequence handling, or with the class-token attention). Please add an ablation that separates the effect of TPE from the effect of T3S, and report the per-split behaviour in the main text rather than only in the supplement, so readers can judge whether the benefit is a genuine phenological alignment effect or a configuration-dependent interaction.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 3.1] The abstract states a '73 crop taxonomy' while Section 3.1 defines 78 labels (73 agricultural + 5 non-crop), and the experiments use 70 modelled classes (65 crops + 5 non-crop). Please use a single consistent set of class counts throughout.
  2. [Section 4.2, Table 4] The caption says Galileo-nano cannot use Thermal PE because its pretrained positional encoding is month-based, but the main text does not explain this constraint before presenting the results; please introduce it in the setup paragraph for clarity.
  3. [Section 4.4] The AUC in the in-season analysis is described as the area under the in-season performance curve across twelve monthly cutoffs, but the integration rule (trapezoidal, step, or other) is not specified; please state it.
  4. [Section 4, Setup] All models are trained with a fixed seed (7777) and no seed variance is reported. A sentence acknowledging that all numbers are single-seed estimates and pointing to the seed in the released code would improve the reproducibility statement.
  5. [Supp. Tab. 3] The mask evaluation claims that errors are predominantly false negatives, but the per-split mask precision/recall are only given in the supplement; consider reporting per-split mask IoU or recall in the main paper to support this claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SwissCrop25 benchmark, LOYO protocol, and model comparisons are derived from external data and open evaluation, with the only self-citation (T3S) ablated against external methods.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are benchmark observations, not derivations from fitted quantities. The labels come from the external LNF/FOAG administrative register and swissTLM3D; the imagery and temperature data are independent external sources; the LOYO splits are calendar-year holdouts with the preceding year used only for validation. No reported mIoU or ranking is used to define the benchmark or to fit a parameter. The only self-citation is T3S [46], which is evaluated as one of two temperature-based temporal representation strategies; it is compared against a day-of-year baseline and against the external TPE method, and the largest TSViT gain is attributed to TPE rather than T3S, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The disclosed LNF label-noise limitation (Section 3.1) is a ground-truth fidelity caveat, not a circular step, because the benchmark does not assume the labels are correct in order to derive its own conclusions. Therefore the central derivation chain is self-contained and no circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The benchmark's quantitative claims rest on administrative label accuracy, TLM3D non-crop labels, a crop-agnostic GDD base, spatial reuse across years, and single-seed training. None of these are fitted to the target result, but several are hand-selected and unvalidated at national scale.

free parameters (4)
  • GDD base temperature T_base = 0 °C
    Chosen crop-agnostically because crop identity is unknown at inference time; shapes the cumulative GDD series used for T3S binning and thermal positional encoding (Sec 3.3).
  • Number of temporal samples in baseline and T3S binning = 24
    Baseline uses 24 least-cloudy observations sampled uniformly in calendar time; T3S reindexes to 24 equal GDD bins (Sec 4.2, Supp. Tab. 5). The bin count affects phenological alignment results.
  • Class-balanced loss effective-number beta = 0.99999
    Hyperparameter of the class-balanced cross-entropy loss used for all models; no sensitivity analysis reported (Supp. Sec. E).
  • Canton coverage threshold for partial years = 90% of maximum LNF extent
    Excludes canton-year combinations with incomplete LNF coverage in 2019 and 2020, affecting training data composition (Sec 3.1).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption LNF administrative declarations reflect realized crop cover at 10m pixel level
    All labels and metrics assume declared planting intent matches actual land cover; paper notes noise for silage vs grain maize and no field validation is available (Sec 3.1).
  • domain assumption swissTLM3D provides accurate non-crop land cover labels
    Non-crop classes and the cropland delineation ground truth are taken from the national topographic model and assumed correct at 10m (Sec 3.1).
  • ad hoc to paper Cumulative GDD with base temperature 0°C aligns phenology across all crop classes
    Adopted because crop identity is unknown at inference; no agronomic calibration or class-specific validation is provided (Sec 3.3).
  • domain assumption Reusing the same spatial locations across years gives valid temporal generalization estimates
    Spatial locations are intentionally reused, so LOYO measures year-to-year shift but not spatial transfer; authors argue this mirrors deployment (Sec 4).
  • domain assumption Single-seed training is sufficient to compare models
    All runs use seed 7777; reported variance covers LOYO splits only, not training stochasticity (Supp. Sec. E).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SwissCrop25: A National Multi-Year Benchmark for Operational Crop Mapping." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CQDIR2KT

@misc{pith2026260809497,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SwissCrop25: A National Multi-Year Benchmark for Operational Crop Mapping},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CQDIR2KT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09497}
}
read the original abstract

Operational crop mapping requires models that generalise across years, resolve fine-grained crop taxonomies, and distinguish cropland from surrounding landscapes. However, existing crop mapping datasets enable evaluation of these requirements only in isolation. We therefore introduce SwissCrop25, a national-scale crop mapping benchmark dataset spanning seven growing seasons (2019-2025). SwissCrop25 combines Sentinel-2 time series, daily temperature observations, a fine-grained 73 crop taxonomy including grassland management types, and 5 explicit non-crop land cover classes. To evaluate realistic deployment conditions, we define a leave-one-year-out protocol with joint cropland delineation and crop classification for benchmarking representative crop mapping architectures. Evaluating U-TAE (convolutional temporal-attention model), TSViT (transformer-based spatio-temporal model), and Galileo (EO foundation model) reveals differences between architectures hidden by conventional benchmarks. In this setting, domain-specific models outperform Galileo, with TSViT achieving the best overall performance and a 12 pp macro-mIoU advantage over U-TAE. SwissCrop25 also exposes substantial interannual distribution shifts and shows that incorporating temperature-derived phenological information improves robustness. Finally, in-season evaluation reveals a trade-off between models, with U-TAE performing better early in the season and TSViT gaining an advantage later through improved rare-class discrimination. SwissCrop25 provides a challenging testbed for evaluating crop mapping systems under realistic operational conditions and is publicly released at https://huggingface.co/datasets/EOA-team/SwissCrop25 .

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09497 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. SwissCrop25 overview. Nationwide crop and land-cover labels paired with Sentinel-2 and cumulative growing degree day (GDD) time series, covering Switzer￾land across seven growing seasons (2019–2025). decision-making, food-security systems and commodity markets [6,51]. The ma￾chine learning community has developed a wide range of methods for crop map￾ping, yet existing benchmarks do not fully reflect the requirements… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Interannual weather and growth variability. Left: Cumulative GDD averaged across Switzerland from 1 January through 31 May; inset shows the full year. Right: Median NDVI of winter wheat pixels in the Swiss Mittelland region around Bern. 2019 and 2020 are absent from the NDVI panel due to incomplete parcel data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. In-season OA (left) and mIoU (right) as a function of month cutoff (mean ±1 std across five LOYO splits). U-TAE leads early OA, whereas TSViT gains a late￾season advantage in mIoU. 4.4 In-season Usability End-of-season accuracy does not fully capture the operational value of a crop mapping system, as many applications require predictions before the end of the growing season. We therefore evaluate full-season-trained… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: shows the full class distribution of SwissCrop25 across all 70 classes. 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 10 6 10 7 10 8 Mean pixel count (2021 2025, log scale) Ley Winter Wheat Silage Maize Winter Barley Winter Rapeseed Sugar Beets Grain Maize Vegetables Potatoes Spelt Triticale Su…
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Row-normalised confusion matrix (recall, %) for the five winter cereal classes, TSViT 2024 test split. (a) Without phenological alignment (DOY sampling with cloud filtering). (b) With phenological alignment (T 3S + TPE: GDD-bin reindexing and ther￾mal positional encodi…
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Row-normalised confusion matrix (recall, %) for U-TAE, pooled across five LOYO splits. Classes are sorted by taxonomy group (colour bands on the left spine): Arable Land, Grassland, Permanent, Forest, Water, Unproductive Area, Built-up, Wet￾land. White lines mark group…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Row-normalised confusion matrix (recall, %) for TSViT, pooled across five LOYO splits. Same class ordering and colour scheme as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Row-normalised confusion matrix (recall, %) for Galileo-nano, pooled across five LOYO splits. Same class ordering and colour scheme as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Row-normalised confusion matrix (recall, %) for the previous-year naive tem￾poral baseline, pooled across four LOYO splits (test years 2022–2025). Strong diagonal recall in the Grassland and Permanent blocks reflects year-to-year spatial stability; arable crop rows sho…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Row-normalised confusion matrix (recall, %) for the majority-vote naive tem￾poral baseline, pooled across four LOYO splits (test years 2022–2025). Strong diagonal recall in the Grassland and Permanent blocks reflects year-to-year spatial stability; arable crop rows sho…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Crop mIoU (left) and mF1 (right) as a function of taxonomy granularity, from 3 coarse land-use categories (lv3) to the full 65-class operational leaf taxonomy. Only agricultural classes are included; land cover classes are evaluated separately in the main paper. At lv3…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Crop mIoU of classes above a given test-frequency percentile threshold, aver￾aged over all five splits. At threshold T, only the (100−T)% most frequent crop classes are included. The vertical spread between models widens towards the left (rare classes), quantifying lon…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: In-season mIoU stratified by class frequency. (a) Frequent crop classes (top quartile, n = 17, ≥8M ground-truth pixels): U-TAE and TSViT track closely, with U-TAE retaining a small advantage until late season. (b) Rare crop classes (bottom quartile, n = 17, ≤147K grou…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Remote Sensing14(13), 2981 (Jan 2022).https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14132981

    Asam, S., Gessner, U., Almengor González, R., Wenzl, M., Kriese, J., Kuenzer, C.: Mapping Crop Types of Germany by Combining Temporal Statistical Metrics of Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 Time Series with LPIS Data. Remote Sensing14(13), 2981 (Jan 2022).https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14132981

    work page doi:10.3390/rs14132981 2022

  2. [2]

    Remote Sensing5(2), 949–981 (Feb 2013).https://doi.org/10.3390/rs5020949

    Atzberger, C.: Advances in Remote Sensing of Agriculture: Context Description, Existing Operational Monitoring Systems and Major Information Needs. Remote Sensing5(2), 949–981 (Feb 2013).https://doi.org/10.3390/rs5020949

    work page doi:10.3390/rs5020949 2013

  3. [3]

    Data in Brief56, 110852 (Oct 2024).https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2024.110852

    Aybar, C., Bautista, L., Montero, D., Contreras, J., Ayala, D., Prudencio, F., Loja, J., Ysuhuaylas, L., Herrera, F., Gonzales, K., Valladares, J., Flores, L.A., Mamani, E., Quiñonez, M., Fajardo, R., Espinoza, W., Limas, A., Yali, R., Alcántara, A., Leyva, M., Loayza-Muro, R., Willems, B., Mateo-García, G., Gómez-Chova, L.: CloudSEN12+: The largest datas...

    work page arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Remote Sensing of Environment305, 114110 (May 2024).https://doi.org/10.1 016/j.rse.2024.114110

    Barriere, V., Claverie, M., Schneider, M., Lemoine, G., d’Andrimont, R.: Boosting crop classification by hierarchically fusing satellite, rotational, and contextual data. Remote Sensing of Environment305, 114110 (May 2024).https://doi.org/10.1 016/j.rse.2024.114110

    work page arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Baston, D.: Exactextractr: Fast Extraction from Raster Datasets Using Polygons (2024).https://doi.org/10.32614/CRAN.package.exactextractr

    doi:10.32614/cran.package.exactextractr 2024

  6. [6]

    Scientific Data10(1), 172 (Mar 2023).https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023- 02047-9

    Becker-Reshef, I., Barker, B., Whitcraft, A., Oliva, P., Mobley, K., Justice, C., Sahajpal, R.: Crop Type Maps for Operational Global Agricultural Monitoring. Scientific Data10(1), 172 (Mar 2023).https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023- 02047-9

    doi:10.1038/s41597-023- 2023

  7. [7]

    Geocarto International26(5), 341–358 (Aug 2011).https: //doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2011.562309 16 Lauber et al

    Boryan, C., Yang, Z., Mueller, R., Craig, M.: Monitoring US agriculture: The US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Cropland Data Layer Program. Geocarto International26(5), 341–358 (Aug 2011).https: //doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2011.562309 16 Lauber et al

    arXiv 2011

  8. [8]

    Earth System Science Data18(6), 4075–4095 (Jun 2026).https://doi.org/10.5194/es sd-18-4075-2026

    Claverie, M., Chan, A., See, L., Ramos, H., Koeble, R., Yordanov, M., Skøien, J.O., Urbano, F., d’Andrimont, R., Schneider, M., Körner, M., Van der Velde, M.: EuroCrops v2.0: Multi-annual harmonized parcel level crop type data linked to European Union-wide survey, statistical, and Earth Observation products. Earth System Science Data18(6), 4075–4095 (Jun ...

    work page doi:10.5194/es 2026

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Copernicus Land Monitoring Service: High Resolution Layer Croplands (2025),ht tps://land.copernicus.eu/en/products/high-resolution-layer-croplands

    2025

  2. [10]

    In: 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    Cui, Y., Jia, M., Lin, T.Y., Song, Y., Belongie, S.: Class-Balanced Loss Based on Effective Number of Samples. In: 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 9260–9269 (Jun 2019).https://doi.org/ 10.1109/CVPR.2019.00949

    2019

  3. [11]

    de Abelleyra, D., Iturralde Elortegui, M.d.R., Zelaya, K., Portillo, J., Melilli, M., Volante, J., Franzoni, A., López Morillo, CS., Goytía, Y., Murray, F., Santillán, J., Berriolo, J., Lanceta Pereyra, M., Scavone, A., Continelli, N., Gerlero, G., Salas, D., Reinaldi, J., Lop...

    2024

  4. [12]

    Remote Sensing of Environment120, 25–36 (May 2012).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.11.026

    Drusch, M., Del Bello, U., Carlier, S., Colin, O., Fernandez, V., Gascon, F., Ho- ersch, B., Isola, C., Laberinti, P., Martimort, P., Meygret, A., Spoto, F., Sy, O., Marchese, F., Bargellini, P.: Sentinel-2: ESA’s Optical High-Resolution Mission for GMES Operational Services. ...

    2012 doi

  5. [13]

    European Space Agency (ESA): Sen4CAP - Sentinels for Common Agricultural Policy: Validation Report. Tech. rep., European Space Agency (ESA) (2021),ht tps://www.esa-sen4cap.org/wp-content/uploads/files/14_Sen4CAP_VR_v1.2 .pdf

    2021

  6. [14]

    Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG): Landwirtschaftliche Kulturflächen (2024), https://www.blw.admin.ch/de/landwirtschaftliche-kulturflaechen

    2024

  7. [15]

    Federal Office of Topography swisstopo: swissTLM3D: The large-scale topographic landscape model of Switzerland (2026),https://www.swisstopo.admin.ch/en/ landscape-model-swisstlm3d

    2026

  8. [16]

    In: 2014 IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium

    Fisette, T., Davidson, A., Daneshfar, B., Rollin, P., Aly, Z., Campbell, L.: Annual space-based crop inventory for Canada: 2009–2014. In: 2014 IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium. pp. 5095–5098 (Jul 2014).https://doi.org/10.110 9/IGARSS.2014.6947643

    2009

  9. [17]

    In: 2013 Second International Conference on Agro-Geoinformatics (Agro-Geoinformatics)

    Fisette, T., Rollin, P., Aly, Z., Campbell, L., Daneshfar, B., Filyer, P., Smith, A., Davidson, A., Shang, J., Jarvis, I.: AAFC annual crop inventory. In: 2013 Second International Conference on Agro-Geoinformatics (Agro-Geoinformatics). pp. 270– 274(Aug2013).https://doi.org/1...

    2013

  10. [18]

    ISPRS Journal of Photogram- SwissCrop25 17 metry and Remote Sensing237, 271–300 (Jul 2026).https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.isprsjprs.2026.04.017

    Garioud, A., Giordano, S., David, N., Gonthier, N.: FLAIR-HUB: Large-scale mul- timodal dataset for land cover and crop mapping. ISPRS Journal of Photogram- SwissCrop25 17 metry and Remote Sensing237, 271–300 (Jul 2026).https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.isprsjprs.2026.04.017

    2026

  11. [19]

    In: 2021 IEEE/CVF In- ternational Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

    Garnot, V.S.F., Landrieu, L.: Panoptic Segmentation of Satellite Image Time Se- ries with Convolutional Temporal Attention Networks. In: 2021 IEEE/CVF In- ternational Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV). pp. 4852–4861 (Oct 2021). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV48922.2021.00483

    2021

  12. [20]

    Garnot, V.S.F., Landrieu, L., Giordano, S., Chehata, N.: Satellite Image Time Series Classification with Pixel-Set Encoders and Temporal Self-Attention (Nov 2019).https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1911.07757

    2019 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    geodienste.ch: Nutzungsflächen,https://geodienste.ch/services/lwb_nutzung sflaechen

  14. [22]

    Scientific Data11(1), 1048 (Sep 2024).https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-03884-y

    Ghassemi, B., Izquierdo-Verdiguier, E., Verhegghen, A., Yordanov, M., Lemoine, G., Moreno Martínez, Á., De Marchi, D., van der Velde, M., Vuolo, F., d’Andrimont, R.: European Union crop map 2022: Earth observation’s 10-meter dive into Europe’s crop tapestry. Scientific Data11(...

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    Environmental Research Letters15(8), 084035 (Aug 2020).https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab8f60

    Holland, A., Bennett, D., Secchi, S.: Complying with conservation compliance? An assessment of recent evidence in the US Corn Belt. Environmental Research Letters15(8), 084035 (Aug 2020).https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab8f60

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Tech. rep., Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan (2006),https://www.ipcc...

    2006

  17. [25]

    Kondmann, L., Toker, A., Russwurm, M., Camero, A., Peressuti, D., Milcinski, G., Longépé, N., Mathieu, P.P., Davis, T., Marchisio, G., Leal-Taixé, L., Zhu, X.X.: DENETHOR: The DynamicEarthNET dataset for Harmonized, inter-Operable, analysis-Ready, daily crop monitoring from sp...

    2021

  18. [26]

    Scientific Data13(1), 750 (Mar 2026).https://doi.org/10.1038/s415 97-026-07099-1

    Li, H., Di, L., Zhang, C., Guo, L., Yu, E.G., Shao, B., Liu, Z., Li, H.: Automated 10-m Resolution In-season Crop-type Data Layer Mapping for Contiguous United States. Scientific Data13(1), 750 (Mar 2026).https://doi.org/10.1038/s415 97-026-07099-1

    2026 doi

  19. [27]

    MeteoSwiss: Documentation of MeteoSwiss Grid-Data Products: Daily Mean, Min- imum and Maximum Temperature: TabsD, TminD, TmaxD. Tech. rep., Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss, Zürich, Switzerland (2021), https://www.meteoschweiz.admin.ch/dam/jcr:818a4d17-...

    2021

  20. [28]

    Zenodo (Oct 2022).https://doi

    Microsoft Open Source, McFarland, M., Emanuele, R., Morris, D., Augspurger, T.: Microsoft/PlanetaryComputer: October 2022. Zenodo (Oct 2022).https://doi. org/10.5281/ZENODO.7261897

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    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 Sensing and Spatial Information SciencesXL...

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    Nyborg, J., Pelletier, C., Assent, I.: Generalized Classification of Satellite Image Time Series with Thermal Positional Encoding (Jun 2022).https://doi.org/10 .48550/arXiv.2203.09175

    2022 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing188, 301–313 (Jun 2022).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.is prsjprs.2022.04.018

    Nyborg, J., Pelletier, C., Lefèvre, S., Assent, I.: TimeMatch: Unsupervised cross- region adaptation by temporal shift estimation. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing188, 301–313 (Jun 2022).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.is prsjprs.2022.04.018

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    Remote Sensing11(5), 523 (Jan 2019).https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11050523

    Pelletier, C., Webb, G.I., Petitjean, F.: Temporal Convolutional Neural Network for the Classification of Satellite Image Time Series. Remote Sensing11(5), 523 (Jan 2019).https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11050523

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation129, 103867 (May 2024).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag

    Pham, V.D., Tetteh, G., Thiel, F., Erasmi, S., Schwieder, M., Frantz, D., van der Linden, S.: Temporally transferable crop mapping with temporal encoding and deep learning augmentations. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation129, 103867 (May 2024...

    2024

  26. [34]

    Sci- entific Data12(1), 664 (Apr 2025).https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025- 04952-7

    Reuss, J., Macdonald, J., Becker, S., Richter, L., Körner, M.: The EuroCropsML time series benchmark dataset for few-shot crop type classification in Europe. Sci- entific Data12(1), 664 (Apr 2025).https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025- 04952-7

    2025 doi

  27. [35]

    ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information7(4), 129 (Apr 2018).https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi7040129

    Rußwurm,M.,Körner,M.:Multi-TemporalLandCoverClassificationwithSequen- tial Recurrent Encoders. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information7(4), 129 (Apr 2018).https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi7040129

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing169, 421– 435 (Nov 2020).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2020.06.006

    Rußwurm, M., Körner, M.: Self-attention for raw optical Satellite Time Series Classification. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing169, 421– 435 (Nov 2020).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2020.06.006

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    Rußwurm, M., Pelletier, C., Zollner, M., Lefèvre, S., Körner, M.: BreizhCrops: A Time Series Dataset for Crop Type Mapping (May 2020).https://doi.org/10.4 8550/arXiv.1905.11893

    2020 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    Scientific Data10(1), 612 (Sep 2023).https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02517-0

    Schneider, M., Schelte, T., Schmitz, F., Körner, M.: EuroCrops: The Largest Har- monized Open Crop Dataset Across the European Union. Scientific Data10(1), 612 (Sep 2023).https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02517-0

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    In: IGARSS 2024 - 2024 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium

    Senaras, C., Holden, P., Davis, T., Wania, A., Rana, A.S., Grady, M., De Jeu, R.: Early-Season Crop Classification with Planet Fusion. In: IGARSS 2024 - 2024 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium. pp. 4145–4149 (Jul 2024).https://doi.org/10.1109/IGARSS5347...

    2024

  32. [40]

    IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Re- mote Sensing15, 3323–3339 (2022).https://doi.org/10.1109/JSTARS.2022.31 64771

    Sykas, D., Sdraka, M., Zografakis, D., Papoutsis, I.: A Sentinel-2 Multiyear, Multi- country Benchmark Dataset for Crop Classification and Segmentation With Deep Learning. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Re- mote Sensing15, 3323–3339 (2022).ht...

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    Tarasiou, M., Chavez, E., Zafeiriou, S.: ViTs for SITS: Vision Transformers for Satellite Image Time Series (Apr 2023).https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.230 1.04944

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    Tetteh, G.O., Schwieder, M., Blickensdörfer, L., Gocht, A., Erasmi, S.: Agricultural land use (raster): National-scale crop type maps for Germany from combined time series of Sentinel-2 and Landsat data (2025) (Sep 2025).https://doi.org/10.5 281/zenodo.17181502

    2025

  35. [43]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2304.14065 SwissCrop25 19

    Tseng, G., Cartuyvels, R., Zvonkov, I., Purohit, M., Rolnick, D., Kerner, H.: Lightweight, Pre-trained Transformers for Remote Sensing Timeseries (Feb 2024). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2304.14065 SwissCrop25 19

    2024 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    In: Singh, A., Fazel, M., Hsu, D., Lacoste- Julien, S., Berkenkamp, F., Maharaj, T., Wagstaff, K., Zhu, J

    Tseng, G., Fuller, A., Reil, M., Herzog, H., Beukema, P., Bastani, F., Green, J.R., Shelhamer, E., Kerner, H., Rolnick, D.: Galileo: Learning Global & Local Features of Many Remote Sensing Modalities. In: Singh, A., Fazel, M., Hsu, D., Lacoste- Julien, S., Berkenkamp, F., Maha...

    2025

  37. [45]

    Remote Sensing of Environment264, 112603 (Oct 2021)

    Turkoglu, M.O., D’Aronco, S., Perich, G., Liebisch, F., Streit, C., Schindler, K., Wegner, J.D.: Crop mapping from image time series: Deep learning with multi- scale label hierarchies. Remote Sensing of Environment264, 112603 (Oct 2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2021.112603

    2021

  38. [46]

    Turkoglu, M.O., Ledain, S., Zweidler, J., Lauber, T., Aasen, H.: T3S: Think in Thermal Time for Generalizable Crop Mapping from Satellite Image Time Series (Jul 2026).https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.12885

    2026 doi arXiv

  39. [47]

    Earth System Science Data15(12), 5491–5515 (Dec 2023).https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5491-2023

    Van Tricht, K., Degerickx, J., Gilliams, S., Zanaga, D., Battude, M., Grosu, A., Brombacher, J., Lesiv, M., Bayas, J.C.L., Karanam, S., Fritz, S., Becker-Reshef, I., Franch, B., Mollà-Bononad, B., Boogaard, H., Pratihast, A.K., Koetz, B., Szantoi, Z.: WorldCereal: A dynamic op...

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.12533

    Vincent, E., Ponce, J., Aubry, M.: Pixel-wise Agricultural Image Time Series Clas- sification: Comparisons and a Deformable Prototype-based Approach (Jul 2024). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.12533

    2024 doi arXiv

  41. [49]

    IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing14, 4699–4708 (Apr 2021).https://doi.org/10.1109/JSTARS.2021.3073965

    Weikmann, G., Paris, C., Bruzzone, L.: TimeSen2Crop: A Million Labeled Sam- ples Dataset of Sentinel 2 Image Time Series for Crop-Type Classification. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing14, 4699–4708 (Apr 2021).https://doi.org/10.11...

    2021

  42. [50]

    ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing213, 72–86 (Jul 2024)

    Wijesingha, J., Dzene, I., Wachendorf, M.: Evaluating the spatial–temporal trans- ferability of models for agricultural land cover mapping using Landsat archive. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing213, 72–86 (Jul 2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2024.05.020

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    National Science Review10(4), nwac290 (Apr 2023)

    Wu, B., Zhang, M., Zeng, H., Tian, F., Potgieter, A.B., Qin, X., Yan, N., Chang, S., Zhao, Y., Dong, Q., Boken, V., Plotnikov, D., Guo, H., Wu, F., Zhao, H., Deronde, B., Tits, L., Loupian, E.: Challenges and opportunities in remote sensing-based crop monitoring: A review. Nat...

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing18, 5172–5188 (2025).https://doi.org/10.1109/JSTARS.2 025.3527017 20 Lauber et al

    Yuan, Y., Lin, L., Xin, Q., Zhou, Z.G., Liu, Q.: An Empirical Study on Data Augmentation for Pixelwise Satellite Image Time-Series Classification and Cross- Year Adaptation. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing18, 5172–5188 (2025).ht...

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.