Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 39 references

A method for estimating forest carbon storage distribution density via artificial intelligence generated content model

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes an improved implicit diffusion model that maps 16-meter forest carbon storage density from GF-1 satellite imagery, reporting an RMSE of 28.68 that beats regression, VAE, and GAN baselines.

desk verdict The engineering is real, but the headline RMSE is measured against a synthetic canopy-height-weighted target and the model inputs are unspecified, so the central accuracy claim is not supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00783 v1 pith:A5JHSB4N submitted 2025-02-02 cs.CV eess.IV

Zhenyu Yu , Jinnian Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVeess.IV
keywords forestcarbonstoragedensityremotesensinginversiondiffusionmodelAIGCknowledgedistillationimplicitneuralrepresentationGF-1WFV
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

Forests are the largest land carbon store, and this paper attempts to show that a generative diffusion model—a tool normally used for synthesizing images—can be turned into a precise quantitative remote sensing estimator that maps forest carbon storage density directly from optical satellite imagery. The authors frame carbon storage estimation as an image-translation task and propose an Improved Implicit Diffusion Model (IIDM) that takes GF-1 WFV satellite images of Huize County, Yunnan, and outputs 16-meter carbon density maps. They report that IIDM achieves an RMSE of 28.68, roughly 13 points better than their regression baselines, and that it outperforms VAE and GAN baselines while approaching lidar-based estimates. If the claim holds, it would establish artificial-intelligence-generated content as a viable approach in quantitative remote sensing and would provide a practical path to high-resolution forest carbon sink monitoring from long-running optical missions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Improved Implicit Diffusion Model (IIDM), an image-to-image translation network built on an implicit diffusion model. Its denoising U-Net receives initial features from KD-VGG, a VGG-19 encoder compressed by PCA-based knowledge distillation (down to 290K parameters); an Attention + MLP module fuses the global and local features during up-sampling; and coordinate-based MLPs form an implicit neural representation that reconstructs high-fidelity outputs at continuous scale. The training targets are pixel-level 'carbon storage densities' constructed by Eq. (3): each survey plaque's total carbon storage (from IPCC biomass equations) is distributed to pixels in proportion to a normalized canopy-height weight, so the model is effectively learning to translate satellite spectral images into canopy-height-weighted carbon density maps.

What would settle it

Run the trained IIDM with canopy height withheld from all inputs and compare RMSE; if it rises substantially, the reported accuracy is largely the weighting formula, not image features. Alternatively, compare the model's predictions against independent field plots of measured carbon density at 16 m scale that were not used to create the synthetic targets—a large disagreement would falsify the claim that the model estimates actual carbon storage distribution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the improved implicit diffusion model IIDM estimates 16-meter forest carbon storage density from GF-1 WFV optical imagery with an RMSE of 28.68—about 13 points better than the best regression baseline and visibly better than VAE and GAN—thereby demonstrating that generative image-translation models can serve as high-accuracy quantitative remote sensing estimators. The proposed discovery is that the diffusion model's deep feature extraction and implicit neural representation capture nonlinear spectral-textural relationships that regression and earlier generative methods miss, bringing optical-only carbon storage accuracy (RMSE 28.68) close to airborne lidar estimates (RMSE 25.64). The authors also claim a practical engineering win: the distilled VGG-19 feature extractor compresses the front-end from 78.14M to about 0.28M parameters while preserving most feature extraction capability, reducing inference time in the full IIDM.

Load-bearing premise

The entire accuracy comparison rests on the synthetic pixel-level carbon targets defined by Eq. (3)—plaque-level carbon storage redistributed by canopy-height weights—and the paper never states whether canopy height is also fed to the model as an input, so if it is, the model can partly reproduce the weighting rule itself instead of learning an image-to-carbon relationship.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, optical satellites such as GF-1, with long mission lifespans and 16 m resolution, could support routine wall-to-wall forest carbon density mapping at scales where lidar coverage or field inventories are unavailable.
  • The same IIDM architecture—distilled feature extractor plus attention-fused diffusion translation—could be transferred to other quantitative inversion tasks, such as aboveground biomass, soil organic carbon, or canopy height estimation.
  • The reported parameter reduction (VGG-19 from 78.14M to ~0.28M via KD-VGG) implies that high-accuracy generative estimation does not require huge models, which would broaden deployability.
  • The accuracy margin over regression (about 13 RMSE units) suggests that the nonlinear features learned by diffusion models carry real estimation signal that linear and kernel methods cannot extract from multispectral imagery.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the accuracy figures validate the model against a synthetic target computed from Eq. (3), not against independently measured pixel carbon; a field campaign with plot-level 16 m carbon measurements would be required to know how much of the RMSE gain reflects true carbon distribution.
  • Beyond the paper: because the paper does not state whether canopy height is included as a model input, an obvious extension is to ablate that input; if accuracy collapses, the model is largely interpolating the weighting formula rather than learning spectral carbon signatures.
  • Beyond the paper: the same method could be benchmarked on public multi-site datasets with common validation plots to test whether the diffusion advantage persists across forest types, terrain, and sensors, which would distinguish an architecture effect from a dataset artifact.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an improved implicit diffusion model (IIDM) for estimating forest carbon storage distribution density from GF-1 WFV satellite imagery in Huize County, China. The method couples a knowledge-distilled VGG-19 feature extractor (KD-VGG) with an implicit diffusion model and Attention+MLP feature fusion, and the authors report that IIDM achieves the best accuracy among OLS, RF, SVR, VAE, GAN, and diffusion baselines, with RMSE = 28.68. The paper also compares this result with a published lidar-based RMSE of 25.64 and concludes that AIGC is feasible for quantitative remote sensing.

Significance. If the methodological and accuracy claims were valid, the paper would demonstrate a useful application of diffusion models to high-resolution carbon mapping and a lightweight feature extractor with reduced inference time. The hypothetical significance is real: a 16 m carbon-storage-density product from optical imagery would be valuable for forest carbon accounting. However, the current evidence does not establish the validity of the target variable or the accuracy comparison, because the pixel-level carbon density is constructed synthetically from canopy-height weighting, the model inputs are never explicitly specified, and no independent validation data are provided. The absence of code and data further limits reproducibility. These issues are load-bearing for the central claim, and as presented the quantitative results do not support the stated conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.3.1, Eq. (3)] The pixel-level carbon density target CD_i is defined as the product of plaque-level carbon storage C_i and normalized canopy height W_i. This is not an independent measurement of carbon density; it is a redistribution of inventory carbon within each plaque weighted by canopy height. All accuracy metrics in Table 3 (RMSE = 28.68) are computed against this synthetic target, so they quantify how well a model reproduces a canopy-height-weighted allocation rule, not how well it estimates field-verified carbon density. The manuscript provides no independent pixel-level validation data, and therefore the central accuracy claim is unsupported.
  2. [Section 2.2 and Section 2.3.1] The input channels of the conditional network are never explicitly enumerated. Section 2.2 lists canopy height as a data source, and Eq. (3) uses normalized canopy height as the target weight. If canopy height, or a proxy derived from DEM or vegetation indices, is among the inputs to KD-VGG or the U-Net, the model can learn the target-construction rule directly, which would make the reported superiority over regression models a leakage artifact rather than a genuine performance gain. The authors must specify the exact model inputs and either exclude canopy height from the inputs or demonstrate that the comparison is unaffected by its presence.
  3. [Section 4.2, Table 3, and Abstract] The comparison to lidar (Cao et al., 2016, RMSE = 25.64) is not valid as stated because that study estimates forest biomass dynamics from multi-temporal airborne lidar in a different region and with a different evaluation protocol; the units, spatial support, and target variable are not harmonized. The claim of being "comparable to lidar" is therefore unsupported. Additionally, the Abstract states that IIDM's RMSE was "13.16 higher" than the regression model, whereas Table 3 shows IIDM's RMSE (28.68) is 13.16 lower than OLS (41.84); both the direction and the percentage are misreported.
  4. [Section 3.3 and Table 3] The evaluation protocol is insufficiently described. There is no statement of how training and test sets were partitioned, whether evaluation is pixel-level or plaque-level, how the regression baselines were configured, what the test sample size was, or whether multiple runs and error bars were computed. Without this information, the reported comparative RMSE/MAE values in Table 3 cannot be verified. This is load-bearing because the entire claim of IIDM's superiority rests on these numbers.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.3.1, Eq. (1)] The carbon storage formula is inconsistent with the stated coefficients: the text gives δ = 1.90, ρ = 0.45–0.50, γ = 0.5, which yields a multiplier of about 0.475, not the printed "2.439"; the equation should be checked and corrected.
  2. [Sections 2.3.2–2.3.7] Equations are numbered out of sequence and the label "(1)" is reused multiple times (e.g., Eq. (4) appears as "(1)", Eq. (10) as "(7)", and several later equations repeat the label "(1)"); renumbering is needed for reproducibility.
  3. [Table 2] The header and text use "SSMI" instead of "SSIM" in multiple places, including the Table 2 column header.
  4. [Section 3.1] The sentence "The inference time of the VGG module was 2.04 times higher compared to that of stable diffusion" is worded backwards; the data in Table 1 show VGG inference time is shorter than stable diffusion's, so the intended statement is presumably 2.04 times faster.
  5. [Section 2.3.6] The loss-function section gives only the L1 formula and does not specify the total training objective, the weighting of the distillation losses described in Section 2.3.2, or the final optimization details, which makes the training procedure incomplete.
  6. [Section 4.2] The phrase "high-fidelity images in the continuous scale range" is vague, and the evaluation metrics are computed at a single resolution, so the continuous-scale claim is not directly evaluated in the results.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The central accuracy claim is measured against a synthetic canopy-height-weighted carbon-density target (Eq. 3), and the paper never excludes canopy height from the model inputs, so the comparison is at least partly circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.3.1, Eq. (3); Section 2.2 (Canopy height); Section 2.3.3 (conditional network)]
    "We used the plaque of survey data as a unit area, normalized the canopy height within the area as a weight, and calculated the carbon storage density as shown in Eq. (3). ... CD was the carbon storage of each pixel, that was, the carbon storage density. ... Canopy height. The canopy height data we selected is the 10-meter vegetation canopy height dataset of ETH Global Sentinel-2 (Lang et al., 2022)."

    Eq. (3) constructs the pixel-level ground truth as CD_i = C_i × W_i, with W_i the canopy height normalized inside the survey plaque. The model input channels are never enumerated, but canopy height is listed as a data source in Section 2.2 and the conditional network description in Section 2.3.3 does not rule it out. If W_i (or a DEM-correlated proxy) is among the conditioning inputs, the model can reproduce the exact weighting rule that generated the labels, so the reported RMSE = 28.68 would quantify fidelity to the target-construction variable rather than carbon-density estimation. Even if canopy height is withheld, the evaluation target is a synthetic redistribution of plaque carbon storage proportional to canopy height, not an independently measured carbon density.

full rationale

The paper's headline comparison rests on the target defined in Eq. (3), which is not independent of an auxiliary variable (canopy height) that is also listed as a data source. Because the paper never specifies the model input channels, the accuracy claim is not protected against the reduction where the model learns the label-generating rule. This makes the central RMSE comparison partially circular. The F-Pix2Pix mask from Yu et al. (2023) is a self-citation, but it is applied uniformly to all compared models, so it does not itself force the headline result. The architectural contributions (KD-VGG, Attention+MLP, implicit representation) and external baselines are real, and a meaningful internal comparison could survive if canopy height were explicitly withheld and the synthetic target accepted as a definition; that is why the score is moderate rather than extreme.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities, particles, or forces. The key ledger items are the assumptions embedded in the target construction and the hand-chosen architecture hyperparameters that influence the reported accuracy.

free parameters (3)
  • KD-VGG channel lengths = C1e=10, C2e=20, C3e=58, C4e=64
    Chosen by 85% cumulative explained variance from PCA, with a manual adjustment of C1 from 5 to 10 to improve distillation, as described in Section 2.3.2. These values affect model size and accuracy.
  • Scaling factor s in IIDM = 1
    The paper states the scaling factor modulation of the original model was set to 1 to remove zoom control, a design choice that alters the model behavior (Section 2.3.3).
  • Batch size and epochs for global eigenbasis training = batch size 8, 5 epochs
    These hyperparameters are specified for the global eigenbasis optimization and affect the distilled features.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption IPCC conversion factors correctly convert timber volume to carbon storage.
    Eq. (1) uses volume expansion coefficient 1.90, bulk density 0.5 t/m3, and carbon content 0.5 as default values, not site-calibrated values.
  • domain assumption Canopy height is a valid weight for distributing plaque-level carbon storage to pixels.
    Eq. (3) defines the target density; the paper provides no independent validation of this spatial weighting.
  • standard math The diffusion model forward/reverse process formalism applies to this conditional estimation task.
    The paper follows the standard DDPM/IDM framework but applies it outside its typical image-generation setting.
  • domain assumption The F-Pix2Pix forest mask accurately distinguishes forest from non-forest.
    The model uses a binarized forest mask derived from a prior method; errors in this mask propagate to the carbon estimation.
  • domain assumption ETH Global Sentinel-2 canopy height data are accurate at 10 m resolution.
    These data are used to compute weights in Eq. (3); errors in canopy height directly affect the target values.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A method for estimating forest carbon storage distribution density via artificial intelligence generated content model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A5JHSB4N

@misc{pith2026250200783,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A method for estimating forest carbon storage distribution density via artificial intelligence generated content model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A5JHSB4N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00783}
}
read the original abstract

Forest is the most significant land-based carbon storage mechanism. The forest carbon sink can effectively decrease the atmospheric CO2 concentration and mitigate climate change. Remote sensing estimation not only ensures high accuracy of data, but also enables large-scale area observation. Optical images provide the possibility for long-term monitoring, which is a potential issue in the future carbon storage estimation research. We chose Huize County, Qujing City, Yunnan Province, China as the study area, took GF-1 WFV satellite image as the data, introduced the KD-VGG module to extract the initial features, and proposed the improved implicit diffusion model (IIDM). The results showed that: (1) The VGG-19 module after knowledge distillation can realize the initial feature extraction, reduce the inference time and improve the accuracy in the case of reducing the number of model parameters. (2) The Attention + MLP module was added for feature fusion to obtain the relationship between global and local features and realized the restoration of high-fidelity images in the continuous scale range. (3) The IIDM model proposed in this paper had the highest estimation accuracy, with RMSE of 28.68, which was 13.16 higher than that of the regression model, about 31.45%. In the estimation of carbon storage, the generative model can extract deeper features, and its performance was significantly better than other models. It demonstrated the feasibility of artificial intelligence-generated content (AIGC) in the field of quantitative remote sensing and provided valuable insights for the study of carbon neutralization effect. By combining the actual characteristics of the forest, the regional carbon storage estimation with a resolution of 16-meter was utilized to provide a significant theoretical basis for the formulation of forest carbon sink regulation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Grenouillet, G. (2020). Species better track climate warming in the oceans than on land.Natureecology&evolution,4(8),1044-1059

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    &Chirici, G.(2019).Species distributionmodelling tosupportforest management.A literaturereview.EcologicalModelling,411,108817

    Pecchi, M., Marchi, M., Burton, V., Giannetti, F., Moriondo, M., Bernetti, I., ... &Chirici, G.(2019).Species distributionmodelling tosupportforest management.A literaturereview.EcologicalModelling,411,108817

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    M., Paolucci, L., Ummenhofer, C

    Brando, P. M., Paolucci, L., Ummenhofer, C. C., Ordway, E. M., Hartmann, H., Cattau,M.E.,...&Balch,J.(2019).Droughts,wildfires,andforestcarboncycling:A pantropicalsynthesis.AnnualReviewofEarthandPlanetarySciences,47,555-581. Hua,F., Bruijnzeel,L. A.,Meli,P., Martin,P. A.,Zhang, J.,Nakagawa,S., ...& 33

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Balmford, A. (2022). The biodiversity and ecosystem service contributions and trade-offsofforestrestorationapproaches.Science,376(6595),839-844

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    J., Field, C

    Nolan, C. J., Field, C. B., & Mach, K. J. (2021). Constraints and enablers for increasing carbon storage in the terrestrial biosphere. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment,2(6),436-446

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Sun, W., & Liu, X. (2020). Review on carbon storage estimation of forest ecosystemandapplicationsinChina.ForestEcosystems,7(1),1-14. Hurtt,G.,Zhao,M.,Sahajpal,R.,Armstrong,A.,Birdsey,R.,Campbell,E.,...&

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Tang, H. (2019). Beyond MRV: high-resolution forest carbon modeling for climate mitigation planning over Maryland, USA. Environmental Research Letters, 14(4), 045013

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Lee, J., Kim, B., Noh, J., Lee, C., Kwon, I., Kwon, B. O., ... & Khim, J. S. (2021). The first national scale evaluation of organic carbon stocks and sequestration rates of coastal sediments along the West Sea, South Sea, and East Sea of South Korea.ScienceoftheTotalEnvironment,793,148568

    work page 2021

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Santoro, M., Cartus, O., & Fransson, J. E. (2022). Dynamics of the Swedish forest carbon pool between 2010 and 2015 estimated from satellite L-band SAR observations.RemoteSensingofEnvironment,270,112846

    2022

  2. [10]

    Zhang, X. (2019). Remote sensing of the terrestrial carbon cycle: A review of advancesover50years.RemoteSensingofEnvironment,233,111383. 34

    2019

  3. [11]

    Gao, F., Wu, J., Xiao, J., Li, X., Liao, S., & Chen, W. (2023). Spatially explicit carbonemissionsbyremotesensingandsocialsensing.EnvironmentalResearch,221, 115257

    2023

  4. [12]

    A., Reed, Z

    Long, D. A., Reed, Z. D., Fleisher, A. J., Mendonca, J., Roche, S., & Hodges, J. T. (2020). High‐accuracy near‐infrared carbon dioxide intensity measurements to supportremotesensing.GeophysicalResearchLetters,47(5),e2019GL086344

    2020

  5. [13]

    S., Mendelova, M.,

    Gray, A., Krolikowski, M., Fretwell, P., Convey, P., Peck, L. S., Mendelova, M.,... & Davey, M.P. (2020). Remote sensing reveals Antarctic greensnow algae as importantterrestrialcarbonsink.NatureCommunications,11(1),2527

    2020

  6. [14]

    P., Cheng, Z., & Guo, L

    Chen, Y., Guerschman, J. P., Cheng, Z., & Guo, L. (2019). Remote sensing for vegetation monitoring in carbon capture storage regions: A review. Applied energy, 240,312-326

    2019

  7. [16]

    He, X., Yang, L., Li, A., Zhang, L., Shen, F., Cai, Y., & Zhou, C. (2021). Soil organiccarbonpredictionusingphenologicalparametersandremotesensingvariables generatedfromSentinel-2images.Catena,205,105442

    2021

  8. [17]

    Odebiri, O., Odindi, J., & Mutanga, O. (2021). Basic and deep learning models in remote sensing of soil organic carbon estimation: A brief review. International JournalofAppliedEarthObservationandGeoinformation,102,102389. 35 Wang,S.,Guan,K.,Zhang,C.,Lee,D.,Margenot,A.J.,Ge,Y....

    2021

  9. [18]

    Astrup, R. (2021). Above-ground biomass change estimation using national forest inventory data with Sentinel-2 and Landsat. Remote Sensing of Environment, 265, 112644.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2021.112644

    2021

  10. [19]

    Zhang, R., Zhou, X., Ouyang, Z., Avitabile, V., Qi, J., Chen, J., & Giannico, V. (2019). Estimating aboveground biomass in subtropical forests of China by integrating multisource remote sensing and ground data. Remote Sensing of Environment,232,111341.https://doi.org/10.1016/j...

    2019

  11. [20]

    A., & Duchesne, R

    Chopping, M., Wang, Z., Schaaf, C., Bull, M. A., & Duchesne, R. R. (2022). Forest aboveground biomass in the southwestern United States from a MISR multi-angle index, 2000–2015. Remote Sensing of Environment, 275, 112964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2022.112964

    2022

  12. [21]

    Zhang, X. (2019). Remote sensing of the terrestrial carbon cycle: A review of advancesover50years.RemoteSensingofEnvironment,233,111383

    2019

  13. [22]

    R., Maghsodi, Z., Mousavi, S

    Matinfar, H. R., Maghsodi, Z., Mousavi, S. R., & Rahmani, A. (2021). Evaluation and Prediction of Topsoil organic carbon using Machine learning and 36 hybridmodelsataField-scale.Catena,202,105258. Pham,T.D.,Ha,N.T.,Saintilan,N.,Skidmore,A.,Phan,D.C.,Le, N.N.,...&

    2021

  14. [23]

    Friess, D. A. (2023). Advances in Earth observation and machine learning for quantifyingbluecarbon.Earth-ScienceReviews,104501

    2023

  15. [24]

    & Bengio, Y

    Goodfellow, I., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., Warde-Farley, D., Ozair, S., ... & Bengio, Y. (2014). Generative adversarial nets. Advances in neural informationprocessingsystems,27

    2014

  16. [25]

    P., & Welling, M

    Kingma, D. P., & Welling, M. (2013). Auto-encoding variational bayes. arXiv preprintarXiv:1312.6114. Sohl-Dickstein,J., Weiss, E., Maheswaranathan, N.,& Ganguli, S. (2015, June). Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics. In International conferenceonmachi...

    2013 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Rombach, R., Blattmann, A., Lorenz, D., Esser, P., & Ommer, B. (2022). High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVFconferenceoncomputervisionandpatternrecognition(pp.10684-10695)

    2022

  18. [27]

    Ho, J., Jain, A., & Abbeel, P. (2020). Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Advancesinneuralinformationprocessingsystems,33,6840-6851

    2020

  19. [28]

    Song, J., Meng, C., & Ermon, S. (2020). Denoising diffusion implicit models. arXivpreprintarXiv:2010.02502

    2020 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Zhang, X., Sun, Y., Jia, W., Wang, F., Guo, H., & Ao, Z. (2022). Research on the temporal and spatial distributions of standing wood carbon storage based on 37 remotesensingimagesandlocalmodels.Forests,13(2),346

    2022

  21. [30]

    Zhang, Y., Sui, B., Shen, H., & Ouyang, L. (2019). Mapping stocks of soil total nitrogen using remote sensing data: A comparison of random forest models with differentpredictors.ComputersandElectronicsinAgriculture,160,23-30. Cho,S.,Kang,M.,Ichii,K.,Kim,J.,Lim,J.H.,Chun,J.H.,....

    2019

  22. [31]

    Wu, X., & Wei, F. (2023). Maps with 1 km resolution reveal increases in above- and belowground forest biomass carbon pools in China over the past 20 years. Earth SystemScienceData,15(2),897–910.https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-897-2023 Cao,L.,Coops,N.C.,Innes,J.L.,Sheppard,S.R....

    2023 doi

  23. [32]

    Lang, N., Jetz, W., Schindler, K., & Wegner, J. D. (2022). A high-resolution canopyheightmodeloftheEarth.arXivpreprintarXiv:2204.08322

    2022 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Yu, Z., Wang, J., Yang, X., & Ma, J. (2023). Superpixel-Based Style Transfer Method for Single-Temporal Remote Sensing Image Identification in Forest Type Groups.RemoteSensing,15(15),3875.https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15153875 38

    2023 doi

  25. [34]

    Y., & Gurari, D

    Chiu, T. Y., & Gurari, D. (2022). PCA-based knowledge distillation towards lightweight and content-style balanced photorealistic style transfer models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp.7844-7853)

    2022

  26. [35]

    & Zhang, B

    Gao, S., Liu, X., Zeng, B., Xu, S., Li, Y., Luo, X., ... & Zhang, B. (2023). Implicit diffusion models for continuous super-resolution. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp. 10021-10030)

    2023

  27. [36]

    S., Brousse, O., Esau, I., & Meier, F

    Venter, Z. S., Brousse, O., Esau, I., & Meier, F. (2020). Hyperlocal mapping of urban air temperature using remote sensing and crowdsourced weather data. Remote SensingofEnvironment,242,111791

    2020

  28. [37]

    Sakamoto, T. (2020). Incorporating environmental variables into a MODIS-based crop yield estimation method for United States corn and soybeans through the use of a random forest regression algorithm. ISPRS Journal of PhotogrammetryandRemoteSensing,160,208-228

    2020

  29. [38]

    Zhang, Y., Shi, K., Sun, X., Zhang, Y., Li, N., Wang, W., ... & Li, H. (2022). Improving remote sensing estimation of Secchi disk depth for global lakes and reservoirs using machine learning methods. GIScience & Remote Sensing, 59(1), 1367-1383

    2022

  30. [39]

    Li, X., Du, Z., Huang, Y., & Tan, Z. (2021). A deep translation (GAN) based changedetectionnetwork for opticaland SARremote sensingimages.ISPRS Journal 39 ofPhotogrammetryandRemoteSensing,179,14-34. Du,L., Li,L.,Guo,Y., Wang,Y., Ren,K.,& Chen,J.(2021).Two-stream deep fusionnet...

    2021

  31. [40]

    & Yang, M

    Yang, L., Zhang, Z., Song, Y., Hong, S., Xu, R., Zhao, Y., ... & Yang, M. H. (2022). Diffusion models: A comprehensive survey of methods and applications. arXivpreprintarXiv:2209.00796

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.