Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

From Physics to Foundation Models: A Review of AI-Driven Quantitative Remote Sensing Inversion

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Remote sensing inversion is consolidating around foundation models, the review argues.

desk verdict A review with a workable taxonomy but load-bearing factual errors in its foundation-model section; the central claim currently rests on misdescribed papers. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.09081 v1 pith:IHTJRBC7 submitted 2025-07-11 cs.CV

Zhenyu Yu , Mohd Yamani Idna Idris , Hua Wang , Pei Wang , Junyi Chen , Kun Wang This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords quantitativeremotesensinginversionfoundationmodelsphysics-baseddata-drivenmultimodalfusionself-supervisedpretraininggeophysicalparameterestimationradiativetransfer
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This review argues that quantitative remote sensing inversion—estimating continuous surface variables such as leaf area index, biomass, and evapotranspiration from satellite observations—has passed through three methodological eras: physics-based radiative transfer models, data-driven machine learning, and now foundation models, meaning large AI models pretrained on broad data and adapted to many tasks. The central claim is that the field is moving from task-specific models toward unified, multi-task, multimodal inversion built on self-supervised pretraining and cross-modal fusion. The review matters because it identifies what actually changes when inversion becomes a general-purpose modeling problem, and it catalogs the bottlenecks, especially physical interpretability, domain generalization, scarce labels, and uncertainty quantification, that will decide whether this shift succeeds. It also provides a variable-by-variable map of which model families have been used for which geophysical quantities.

What carries the argument

The organizing device is a three-paradigm taxonomy: physics-based methods built on radiative transfer models such as PROSAIL, SCOPE, and DART and solved through lookup tables, optimization, or physics-informed neural networks; data-driven methods including random forests, support vector regression, CNNs, LSTMs, and Transformers; and foundation models characterized by large-scale self-supervised pretraining with masked or contrastive objectives followed by multi-task adaptation. The taxonomy does the argument's work by aligning each paradigm's modeling assumption, explicit physical forward mapping versus statistical learned mapping versus pretrained general representation, with its typical tasks, input modalities, and failure modes. Within the foundation-model paradigm, the load-bearing mechanisms are masked autoencoding and contrastive multimodal alignment, which let a single architecture serve multiple downstream inversion tasks under limited labels.

What would settle it

Compile a standardized benchmark of a broad set of pretrained remote sensing models and task-specific deep learning baselines on the same LAI, AGB, ET, and soil moisture inversion tasks, and check whether the pretrained models consistently beat the baselines under limited labels; if they do not, the paradigm-shift claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that quantitative remote sensing inversion has evolved from physically grounded models to data-driven learning and, more recently, to foundation model-based paradigms that support multi-task, multi-modal estimation. Three representative foundation models carry the argument: SatMAE, which uses masked autoencoding on multi-temporal Sentinel-2 data to learn spectral-temporal representations for variables such as NDVI, LAI, and FAPAR; GFM, a multimodal Transformer that fuses optical, SAR, and DEM data for concurrent estimation of biomass, canopy height, SIF, and carbon stock; and MMEarth, which aligns hyperspectral, SAR, and DSM inputs through masked and contrastive objectives for pixel-level regression. The authors present these as evidence that inversion is shifting from task-specific customization to unified, general-purpose architectures, while explicitly acknowledging that regression-head design, fine-tuning cost, and physical consistency remain unresolved.

Load-bearing premise

The review's three-paradigm story depends on its chosen foundation models being representative of the state of the art and accurately described; if those selections are atypical or misdescribed, the claim that the field has shifted to foundation models loses its support.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If foundation models become the default inversion paradigm, research priority shifts from collecting labeled field samples to curating diverse, large-scale pretraining archives and designing pretraining objectives.
  • Regression heads and fine-tuning protocols for continuous variables will become a standard design problem, because current foundation models mostly rely on shallow heads that do not exploit the structure of geophysical variables.
  • Physical consistency will need to be built into pretraining through physics-informed losses or differentiable simulation modules, rather than patched on after the fact.
  • Cross-sensor and cross-region adaptation, supported by domain-invariant representations and dedicated benchmarks, becomes the decisive test for global deployment.
  • Benchmark datasets that align ground truth with physical priors and multimodal observations will determine whether foundation-model gains are real, comparable, and scientifically trustworthy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the consolidation argument implies that many current task-specific inversion networks will be subsumed by shared pretrained backbones; a testable prediction is that multitask pretrained models will match or beat single-task models on standard inversion benchmarks once regression heads receive comparable capacity.
  • Editorial extension: a broad, independent benchmark comparing many pretrained remote sensing models, not only the three featured here, on identical LAI, AGB, ET, and soil moisture tasks would settle whether the selected models are truly representative of the state of the art.
  • Editorial extension: one concrete path implied by the review is to pretrain with radiative-transfer simulations as a first stage before fine-tuning on real imagery; the paper points toward this direction but does not quantify how much it improves physical plausibility or few-shot accuracy.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a narrative review of quantitative remote sensing inversion that organizes the literature into three paradigms: physics-based models (PROSPECT/SAIL, SCOPE, DART), data-driven machine learning and deep learning methods, and foundation-model-based approaches (SatMAE, GFM, MMEarth). It proposes a task taxonomy for inversion variables, surveys benchmark datasets and evaluation metrics, discusses open challenges, and concludes that the field is evolving toward foundation-model-based multi-task, multi-modal quantitative inversion. The paper is a literature synthesis rather than an original technical contribution and contains no derivations or experiments.

Significance. If the synthesis were accurate, it would provide a useful entry point for researchers entering quantitative remote sensing inversion, particularly by connecting physics-based and learned paradigms. The review has a broad reference base and a clear organizing framework in its tables, which is a genuine service to the community. However, the central claim about foundation models is currently under-supported: the three models selected as representative are described in ways that do not match the cited papers, and one supporting reference is retracted. As a result, the main thesis—that foundation-model-based paradigms already support multi-task, multi-modal quantitative inversion—needs substantial revision before it can be relied upon. There is no machine-checked proof or reproducible code; the contribution is taxonomic and interpretive, so its value depends entirely on the accuracy of the cited evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.3, Table 5] The description of SatMAE is not supported by the cited paper. The text states that its encoder–decoder structure facilitates fine-tuning for variables such as NDVI, LAI, and FAPAR and demonstrates improved performance in label-scarce settings, but the cited NeurIPS 2022 paper evaluates masked autoencoding on classification and segmentation benchmarks and does not report regression experiments for these variables. Because SatMAE is one of only three concrete examples offered for the foundation-model paradigm, this inaccuracy directly weakens the review's central conclusion that foundation models already support quantitative inversion.
  2. [§4.3, Table 5] The description of GFM is likewise not supported by the cited source. The text claims a multimodal Transformer backbone capable of fusing optical, SAR, and DEM data and 'concurrent estimation of AGB, CH, SIF, and CS,' but the cited ICCV 2023 paper is about continual pretraining to avoid catastrophic forgetting and is evaluated on classification and segmentation tasks; it does not present such a fusion backbone or those inversion outputs. This is a load-bearing inaccuracy because GFM is the second of the three representative foundation models.
  3. [§4.3, Table 5] The mmEarth row requires verification, and the model-selection procedure needs justification. The ECCV 2024 paper explores multi-modal pretext tasks for geospatial representation learning; the review should provide evidence that it was evaluated for pixel-level regression of NDVI and Biomass. In addition, a table titled 'Overview of Foundation Models for Quantitative Remote Sensing Inversion' should explain why well-known remote sensing foundation models such as Prithvi, SpectralGPT, RingMo, and DOFA are omitted; without such justification, the table is not a representative overview and cannot support the paradigmatic claim.
  4. [Table 7, Reference [80]] Reference [80] is marked as retracted in the reference list but is cited without any caveat as a random forest model for LAI estimation. Retracted articles should be removed or explicitly flagged as retracted. In addition, the variable taxonomy needs correction: NDVI is a spectral index computed from reflectance, not a geophysical state variable on the same footing as LAI or AGB, and 'Biomass' appears both as a category and as a vaguely defined variable ('Biomass Index') in Tables 1, 3, 5, and 7, overlapping with AGB.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 8] BigEarthNet is a multi-label classification benchmark; listing it as a resource for 'vegetation index retrieval' overstates its role. Similarly, SSL4EO and Satlas are pretraining datasets rather than inversion benchmark datasets; the table should distinguish dataset purpose from possible downstream use.
  2. [§5.2, Table 9] SSIM can take negative values, so the stated range [0, 1] is not correct; the usual range is [-1, 1]. PSNR is also not bounded below by zero in general, since the mean squared error can exceed the squared signal maximum.
  3. [Reference list] Reference [44] appears in the reference list without an in-text citation, and several first-author arXiv preprints ([37], [38], [42], [50], [51]) are cited as if equivalent to peer-reviewed work; these should be labeled as preprints and cited only where the argument actually depends on them.
  4. [Abstract and §4.3] The abstract uses 'mmEarth' while the body uses 'MMEarth'; please unify the capitalization.
  5. [Tables 1 and 3] The invented full name 'Biomass Index' for the variable 'Biomass' is not standard; replace it with a concrete variable such as forest biomass density or remove the redundant entry, since AGB already covers biomass estimation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No derivation chain to be circular; self-citations are present but not load-bearing for the review's central narrative.

full rationale

This paper is a narrative review rather than a derivation: it contains no chained equations, no fitted parameter that is later renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work. Equation (1) only defines a generic regression objective and is not used to derive any subsequent result. The central three-paradigm claim rests on external citations to SatMAE [19], GFM [20], mmEarth [21], and the foundation-model position paper [22]; these are not self-citations and are externally checkable. The first author's self-cited preprints, including [23], [24], [37], [38], [42], [44], [50], and [51], appear in generic motivating contexts or as incidental supporting citations (e.g., [44] is attached to a sentence about physical interpretability) and do not carry the argument that foundation models enable multi-task, multimodal inversion. The skeptic's concern that Section 4.3 and Table 5 overstate the regression capabilities of SatMAE and GFM relative to the cited papers is a factual-fidelity and evidence-quality issue, not a circularity issue: even if those descriptions were accurate, the review's conclusion would not follow by construction; it would require independent empirical support, which the cited sources may or may not provide. Under the stated definition, no load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs, so the appropriate finding is low-scoring non-circularity; the score of 2 reflects the presence of several self-citations, including unreviewed preprints, none of which is load-bearing.

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

As a review, the paper introduces no free parameters or invented entities. Its claims rest entirely on the completeness and accuracy of the selected literature, which is questionable given the citations to a retracted article and the heavy self-citation.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The three-stage taxonomy (physics-based, data-driven, foundation models) is a complete and accurate representation of the field.
    Figure 2 and Section 2.2 partition all inversion methods into these three categories, but hybrid approaches such as physics-informed neural networks and physics-guided ML are not cleanly assigned, so the taxonomy may not capture the full space of methods.
  • domain assumption The cited sources are credible and accurately described.
    The review's claims rest on its references; however, reference [80] is retracted and several self-citations are unreviewed preprints, undermining this assumption.
  • domain assumption The representative foundation models selected (SatMAE, GFM, MMEarth) reflect the state of the art for inversion tasks.
    Section 4.3 and Table 5 select only these three models; if the selection is not representative, the central narrative about the rise of foundation models is not well supported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Physics to Foundation Models: A Review of AI-Driven Quantitative Remote Sensing Inversion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IHTJRBC7

@misc{pith2026250709081,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Physics to Foundation Models: A Review of AI-Driven Quantitative Remote Sensing Inversion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IHTJRBC7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.09081}
}
read the original abstract

Quantitative remote sensing inversion aims to estimate continuous surface variables-such as biomass, vegetation indices, and evapotranspiration-from satellite observations, supporting applications in ecosystem monitoring, carbon accounting, and land management. With the evolution of remote sensing systems and artificial intelligence, traditional physics-based paradigms are giving way to data-driven and foundation model (FM)-based approaches. This paper systematically reviews the methodological evolution of inversion techniques, from physical models (e.g., PROSPECT, SCOPE, DART) to machine learning methods (e.g., deep learning, multimodal fusion), and further to foundation models (e.g., SatMAE, GFM, mmEarth). We compare the modeling assumptions, application scenarios, and limitations of each paradigm, with emphasis on recent FM advances in self-supervised pretraining, multi-modal integration, and cross-task adaptation. We also highlight persistent challenges in physical interpretability, domain generalization, limited supervision, and uncertainty quantification. Finally, we envision the development of next-generation foundation models for remote sensing inversion, emphasizing unified modeling capacity, cross-domain generalization, and physical interpretability.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Multimodal Deep Learning Framework for Early Diagnosis of Liver Cancer via Optimized BiLSTM-AM-VMD Architecture

    cs.LG 2025-09 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    The paper claims a BiLSTM-AM-VMD model achieves AUC 0.963 for early HCC diagnosis, but the evidence is undermined by contradictory dataset descriptions and missing artifacts.

  2. Multi-Modal Machine Learning Framework for Predicting Early Recurrence of Brain Tumors Using MRI and Clinical Biomarkers

    cs.LG 2025-09 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    XGBoost combining MRI radiomics and clinical biomarkers reportedly reaches C-index 0.782 for early brain tumor recurrence, but the paper's methods describe a liver-cancer cohort and no evaluation of its claimed tempor...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [80]

    Zhang, J., Wu, Q., Liu, C., Xiong, S., Yang, H., Chang, S., Fu, Y., Yang, M., Yang, G., Ma, X., et al.: Retracted: Enhanced crop lai estimation via random forest regression: Bayesian optimization and feature selection approach (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Advanced Science 10(26), 2302361 (2023)

    Shu, J.-C., Cao, M.-S., Zhang, Y.-L., Cao, W.-Q.: Heterodimensional structure switching multispectral stealth and multimedia interaction devices. Advanced Science 10(26), 2302361 (2023)

    2023

  3. [2]

    Nature Reviews Electrical Engineering 1(4), 251–263 (2024)

    Sun, D.-W., Pu, H., Yu, J.: Applications of hyperspectral imaging technology in the food industry. Nature Reviews Electrical Engineering 1(4), 251–263 (2024)

    2024

  4. [3]

    ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 218, 20–49 (2024)

    Hashemi, M.G., Jalilvand, E., Alemohammad, H., Tan, P.-N., Das, N.N.: Review of synthetic aperture radar with deep learning in agricultural applications. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 218, 20–49 (2024)

    2024

  5. [4]

    International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 133, 104123 (2024)

    Min, W., Chen, Y., Huang, W., Wilson, J.P., Tang, H., Guo, M., Xu, R.: Incorporating of spatial effects in forest canopy height mapping using airborne, spaceborne lidar and spatial continuous remote sensing data. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 133, 104123 (2024)

    2024

  6. [5]

    Remote Sensing of Environment 280, 113195 (2022)

    Wulder, M.A., Roy, D.P., Radeloff, V.C., Loveland, T.R., Anderson, M.C., John- son, D.M., Healey, S., Zhu, Z., Scambos, T.A., Pahlevan, N., et al.: Fifty years of landsat science and impacts. Remote Sensing of Environment 280, 113195 (2022)

    2022

  7. [6]

    Information Fusion 90, 185–217 (2023)

    Karim, S., Tong, G., Li, J., Qadir, A., Farooq, U., Yu, Y.: Current advances and future perspectives of image fusion: A comprehensive review. Information Fusion 90, 185–217 (2023)

    2023

  8. [7]

    Nature Reviews Earth & Environment 4(5), 319–332 (2023)

    Li, X., Feng, M., Ran, Y., Su, Y., Liu, F., Huang, C., Shen, H., Xiao, Q., Su, J., Yuan, S., et al.: Big data in earth system science and progress towards a digital twin. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment 4(5), 319–332 (2023)

    2023

Show all 103 references
  1. [8]

    ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 202, 87–113 (2023)

    Han, W., Zhang, X., Wang, Y., Wang, L., Huang, X., Li, J., Wang, S., Chen, W., Li, X., Feng, R., et al.: A survey of machine learning and deep learning in remote sensing of geological environment: Challenges, advances, and oppor- tunities. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and R...

    2023

  2. [9]

    National Remote Sensing Bulletin 26(2), 268–285 (2022)

    Qianqian, Y., Caiyi, J., Tongwen, L., Qiangqiang, Y., Huanfeng, S., et al.: Research progress and challenges of data-driven quantitative remote sensing. National Remote Sensing Bulletin 26(2), 268–285 (2022)

    2022

  3. [10]

    Artificial Intelligence Review 57(9), 224 (2024)

    Abbes, A.B., Jarray, N., Farah, I.R.: Advances in remote sensing based soil moisture retrieval: applications, techniques, scales and challenges for combining 24 machine learning and physical models. Artificial Intelligence Review 57(9), 224 (2024)

    2024

  4. [11]

    IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing (2024)

    Wang, Q., Zhang, Z., Wu, T., Jin, W., Meng, K., Song, Q., Wang, C., Yin, G., Xu, B.: Exploring the optimized leaf area index retrieval strategy based on the look-up table approach for decametric-resolution images. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing (2024)

    2024

  5. [12]

    IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing (2024)

    Chen, J., Zhang, Y., Liu, C., Chen, K., Zou, Z., Shi, Z.: Digital-to-physical visual consistency optimization for adversarial patch generation in remote sensing scenes. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing (2024)

    2024

  6. [13]

    Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 223, 109111 (2024)

    Guo, F., Wang, P., Tansey, K., Zhang, Y., Li, M., Liu, J., Zhang, S.: A novel transformer-based neural network under model interpretability for improving wheat yield estimation using remotely sensed multi-variables. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 223, 109111 (2024)

    2024

  7. [14]

    Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 221, 109017 (2024)

    Tan, J., Ding, J., Wang, Z., Han, L., Wang, X., Li, Y., Zhang, Z., Meng, S., Cai, W., Hong, Y.: Estimating soil salinity in mulched cotton fields using uav-based hyperspectral remote sensing and a seagull optimization algorithm-enhanced random forest model. Computers and Elect...

    2024

  8. [15]

    Remote Sensing 16(13), 2401 (2024)

    Chen, S., Ouyang, X., Luo, F.: Ensemble one-class support vector machine for sea surface target detection based on k-means clustering. Remote Sensing 16(13), 2401 (2024)

    2024

  9. [16]

    IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 62, 1–13 (2024)

    Yasir, M., Liu, S., Mingming, X., Wan, J., Pirasteh, S., Dang, K.B.: Shipgeonet: Sar image-based geometric feature extraction of ships using convolutional neu- ral networks. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 62, 1–13 (2024)

    2024

  10. [17]

    Remote Sensing of Environment 311, 114308 (2024)

    Bai, Y., Mallick, K., Hu, T., Zhang, S., Yang, S., Ahmadi, A.: Integrating machine learning with thermal-driven analytical energy balance model improved terrestrial evapotranspiration estimation through enhanced surface conductance. Remote Sensing of Environment 311, 114308 (2024)

    2024

  11. [18]

    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (2024)

    Hong, D., Zhang, B., Li, X., Li, Y., Li, C., Yao, J., Yokoya, N., Li, H., Ghamisi, P., Jia, X., et al.: Spectralgpt: Spectral remote sensing foundation model. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (2024)

    2024

  12. [19]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35, 197– 211 (2022) 25

    Cong, Y., Khanna, S., Meng, C., Liu, P., Rozi, E., He, Y., Burke, M., Lobell, D., Ermon, S.: Satmae: Pre-training transformers for temporal and multi-spectral satellite imagery. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35, 197– 211 (2022) 25

    2022

  13. [20]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp

    Mendieta, M., Han, B., Shi, X., Zhu, Y., Chen, C.: Towards geospatial foun- dation models via continual pretraining. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 16806–16816 (2023)

    2023

  14. [21]

    In: European Conference on Computer Vision, pp

    Nedungadi, V., Kariryaa, A., Oehmcke, S., Belongie, S., Igel, C., Lang, N.: Mmearth: Exploring multi-modal pretext tasks for geospatial representation learning. In: European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 164–182 (2024). Springer

    2024

  15. [22]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258 (2021)

    Bommasani, R., Hudson, D.A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., Arx, S., Bern- stein, M.S., Bohg, J., Bosselut, A., Brunskill, E., et al.: On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  16. [23]

    IEEE Access (2025)

    Yu, Z., Wang, J., Chen, H., Idris, M.Y.I.: Qrs-trs: Style transfer-based image- to-image translation for carbon stock estimation in quantitative remote sensing. IEEE Access (2025)

    2025

  17. [24]

    International Journal of Artificial Intelligence for Science (IJAI4S) 1(1) (2025)

    Yu, Z.: Ai for science: A comprehensive review on innovations, challenges, and future directions. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence for Science (IJAI4S) 1(1) (2025)

    2025

  18. [25]

    Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 220, 108891 (2024)

    Li, D., Chen, J.M., Yu, W., Zheng, H., Yao, X., Zhu, Y., Cao, W., Cheng, T.: A chlorophyll-constrained semi-empirical model for estimating leaf area index using a red-edge vegetation index. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 220, 108891 (2024)

    2024

  19. [26]

    Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 52, 101689 (2024)

    Almouctar, M.A.S., Wu, Y., Zhao, F., Qin, C.: Drought analysis using nor- malized difference vegetation index and land surface temperature over niamey region, the southwestern of the niger between 2013 and 2019. Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 52, 101689 (2024)

    2024

  20. [27]

    Remote Sensing of Environment 307, 114123 (2024)

    Mallick, K., Verfaillie, J., Wang, T., Ortiz, A.A., Szutu, D., Yi, K., Kang, Y., Shortt, R., Hu, T., Sulis, M., et al.: Net fluxes of broadband shortwave and pho- tosynthetically active radiation complement ndvi and near infrared reflectance of vegetation to explain gross phot...

    2024

  21. [28]

    Ecological Indicators 159, 111653 (2024)

    Ma, T., Zhang, C., Ji, L., Zuo, Z., Beckline, M., Hu, Y., Li, X., Xiao, X.: Development of forest aboveground biomass estimation, its problems and future solutions: A review. Ecological Indicators 159, 111653 (2024)

    2024

  22. [29]

    Remote Sensing of Environment 309, 114226 (2024)

    Malambo, L., Popescu, S.: Mapping vegetation canopy height across the con- tiguous united states using icesat-2 and ancillary datasets. Remote Sensing of Environment 309, 114226 (2024)

    2024

  23. [30]

    Geoderma 398, 115118 (2021)

    Guo, L., Sun, X., Fu, P., Shi, T., Dang, L., Chen, Y., Linderman, M., Zhang, G., Zhang, Y., Jiang, Q., et al.: Mapping soil organic carbon stock by hyperspectral 26 and time-series multispectral remote sensing images in low-relief agricultural areas. Geoderma 398, 115118 (2021)

    2021

  24. [31]

    Remote Sensing of Environment 304, 114066 (2024)

    Tang, R., Peng, Z., Liu, M., Li, Z.-L., Jiang, Y., Hu, Y., Huang, L., Wang, Y., Wang, J., Jia, L., et al.: Spatial-temporal patterns of land surface evapotran- spiration from global products. Remote Sensing of Environment 304, 114066 (2024)

    2024

  25. [32]

    Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 218, 108686 (2024)

    Mane, S., Das, N., Singh, G., Cosh, M., Dong, Y.: Advancements in dielectric soil moisture sensor calibration: A comprehensive review of methods and techniques. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 218, 108686 (2024)

    2024

  26. [33]

    Nature Communications 15(1), 7816 (2024)

    Chen, A., Zhao, C., Zhang, H., Yang, Y., Li, J.: Surface albedo regulates aerosol direct climate effect. Nature Communications 15(1), 7816 (2024)

    2024

  27. [34]

    Applied Sciences 14(14), 5980 (2024)

    Djurovi´ c, S., Lazarevi´ c, D.,´Cirkovi´ c, B., Miˇ si´ c, M., Ivkovi´ c, M., Stojˇ cetovi´ c, B., Petkovi´ c, M., Aˇ sonja, A.: Modeling and prediction of surface roughness in hybrid manufacturing–milling after fdm using artificial neural networks. Applied Sciences 14(14), 5...

    2024

  28. [35]

    Remote Sensing of Environment 301, 113943 (2024)

    Harringmeyer, J.P., Ghosh, N., Weiser, M.W., Thompson, D.R., Simard, M., Lohrenz, S.E., Fichot, C.G.: A hyperspectral view of the nearshore mississippi river delta: Characterizing suspended particles in coastal wetlands using imaging spectroscopy. Remote Sensing of Environment...

    2024

  29. [36]

    Nature Geoscience 17(6), 539–544 (2024)

    Grandjean, T.J., Weenink, R., Wal, D., Addink, E.A., Hu, Z., Liu, S., Wang, Z.B., Yuan, L., Bouma, T.J.: Critical turbidity thresholds for maintenance of estuarine tidal flats worldwide. Nature Geoscience 17(6), 539–544 (2024)

    2024

  30. [37]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10776 (2025)

    Yu, Z., Chen, H., Idris, M.Y.I., Wang, P.: Rainy: Unlocking satellite calibration for deep learning in precipitation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10776 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  31. [38]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.17973 (2024)

    Yu, Z., Wang, J., Idris, M.Y.I.: Iidm: Improved implicit diffusion model with knowledge distillation to estimate the spatial distribution density of carbon stock in remote sensing imagery. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.17973 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  32. [39]

    IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing (2025)

    Yue, C., Zhang, Y., Yan, J., Luo, Z., Liu, Y., Guo, P.: Diffusion mechanism and knowledge distillation object detection in multimodal remote sensing imagery. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing (2025)

    2025

  33. [40]

    Pattern Recognition 164, 111579 (2025)

    Wang, T., Chen, G., Zhang, X., Liu, C., Wang, J., Tan, X., Zhou, W., He, C.: Lmfnet: Lightweight multimodal fusion network for high-resolution remote sensing image segmentation. Pattern Recognition 164, 111579 (2025)

    2025

  34. [41]

    IEEE Transactions on Multimedia (2025) 27

    Lu, X., Li, L., Jiao, L., Liu, X., Liu, F., Ma, W., Yang, S.: Uncertainty- aware semi-supervised learning segmentation for remote sensing images. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia (2025) 27

    2025

  35. [42]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.12112 (2025)

    Yu, Z., Idris, M.Y.I., Wang, P.: Satellitemaker: A diffusion-based frame- work for terrain-aware remote sensing image reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.12112 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  36. [43]

    ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 108, 273–290 (2015)

    Verrelst, J., Camps-Valls, G., Mu˜ noz-Mar ´ ı, J., Rivera, J.P., Veroustraete, F., Clevers, J.G., Moreno, J.: Optical remote sensing and the retrieval of terrestrial vegetation bio-geophysical properties–a review. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 108, 273–290 (2015)

    2015

  37. [44]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.13442 (2025)

    Yu, Z., Idris, M., Wang, P.: Satellitecalculator: A multi-task vision foun- dation model for quantitative remote sensing inversion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.13442 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  38. [45]

    IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 60, 1–11 (2021)

    Lei, S., Shi, Z., Mo, W.: Transformer-based multistage enhancement for remote sensing image super-resolution. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 60, 1–11 (2021)

    2021

  39. [46]

    IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology (2025)

    Luo, T., Li, H., Gong, M., Zhou, Y., Qin, A.: Steam: Style transfer enabled adversarial attack with attention mechanism on remote sensing image scene classification. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology (2025)

    2025

  40. [47]

    Remote Sensing of Environment 306, 114117 (2024)

    Zhang, S., Tian, J., Lu, X., Tian, Q., He, S., Lin, Y., Li, S., Zheng, W., Wen, T., Mu, X., et al.: Monitoring of chlorophyll content in local saltwort species suaeda salsa under water and salt stress based on the prosail-d model in coastal wetland. Remote Sensing of Environme...

    2024

  41. [48]

    Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 225, 109238 (2024)

    Ntakos, G., Prikaziuk, E., Den, T., Reidsma, P., Vilfan, N., Wal, T., Tol, C.: Cou- pled wofost and scope model for remote sensing-based crop growth simulations. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 225, 109238 (2024)

    2024

  42. [49]

    ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 198, 297–309 (2023)

    Mutanga, O., Masenyama, A., Sibanda, M.: Spectral saturation in the remote sensing of high-density vegetation traits: A systematic review of progress, chal- lenges, and prospects. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 198, 297–309 (2023)

    2023

  43. [50]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.14785 (2025)

    Yu, Z., Idris, M.Y.I., Wang, P.: Dc4cr: When cloud removal meets diffusion control in remote sensing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.14785 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  44. [51]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.06176 (2025)

    Yu, Z., Idris, M., Wang, P., Xia, Y., Ma, F., Qureshi, R., et al.: Satellitefor- mula: Multi-modal symbolic regression from remote sensing imagery for physics discovery. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.06176 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Remote Sensing of Environment 286, 113421 (2023) 28

    Hu, Y., Tang, R., Jiang, X., Li, Z.-L., Jiang, Y., Liu, M., Gao, C., Zhou, X.: A physical method for downscaling land surface temperatures using surface energy balance theory. Remote Sensing of Environment 286, 113421 (2023) 28

    2023

  46. [53]

    0: A satellite-based and coupled-process model for quantifying long-term global land–atmosphere fluxes

    Li, B., Ryu, Y., Jiang, C., Dechant, B., Liu, J., Yan, Y., Li, X.: Bessv2. 0: A satellite-based and coupled-process model for quantifying long-term global land–atmosphere fluxes. Remote Sensing of Environment 295, 113696 (2023)

    2023

  47. [54]

    IEEE geoscience and remote sensing magazine 5(4), 8–36 (2017)

    Zhu, X.X., Tuia, D., Mou, L., Xia, G.-S., Zhang, L., Xu, F., Fraundorfer, F.: Deep learning in remote sensing: A comprehensive review and list of resources. IEEE geoscience and remote sensing magazine 5(4), 8–36 (2017)

    2017

  48. [55]

    IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing 15, 9842–9859 (2022)

    Peng, J., Huang, Y., Sun, W., Chen, N., Ning, Y., Du, Q.: Domain adaptation in remote sensing image classification: A survey. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing 15, 9842–9859 (2022)

    2022

  49. [56]

    IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing (2025)

    Hu, J., Li, Q., Wang, Q.: Dualstrip-net: A strip-based unified framework for weakly-and semi-supervised road segmentation from satellite images. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing (2025)

    2025

  50. [57]

    Remote sensing of environment 113, 56–66 (2009)

    Jacquemoud, S., Verhoef, W., Baret, F., Bacour, C., Zarco-Tejada, P.J., Asner, G.P., Fran¸ cois, C., Ustin, S.L.: Prospect+ sail models: A review of use for vegetation characterization. Remote sensing of environment 113, 56–66 (2009)

    2009

  51. [58]

    International journal of remote sensing 25(1), 73–96 (2004)

    Gastellu-Etchegorry, J., Martin, E., Gascon, F.: Dart: a 3d model for simulating satellite images and studying surface radiation budget. International journal of remote sensing 25(1), 73–96 (2004)

    2004

  52. [59]

    Geoscientific Model Development 14(7), 4697–4712 (2021)

    Yang, P., Prikaziuk, E., Verhoef, W., Der Tol, C.: Scope 2.0: A model to sim- ulate vegetated land surface fluxes and satellite signals. Geoscientific Model Development 14(7), 4697–4712 (2021)

    2021

  53. [60]

    JSTOR (1995)

    Zaneveld, J.R.V.: Light and water: Radiative transfer in natural waters. JSTOR (1995)

    1995

  54. [61]

    Remote sensing of environment 112(4), 1702–1711 (2008)

    Binding, C.E., Jerome, J.H., Bukata, R.P., Booty, W.G.: Spectral absorption properties of dissolved and particulate matter in lake erie. Remote sensing of environment 112(4), 1702–1711 (2008)

    2008

  55. [62]

    IEEE transactions on geoscience and remote sensing 35(3), 675–686 (1997)

    Vermote, E.F., Tanr´ e, D., Deuze, J.L., Herman, M., Morcette, J.-J.: Second simulation of the satellite signal in the solar spectrum, 6s: An overview. IEEE transactions on geoscience and remote sensing 35(3), 675–686 (1997)

    1997

  56. [63]

    Remote sensing of environment 87(1), 23–41 (2003)

    Verhoef, W., Bach, H.: Simulation of hyperspectral and directional radiance images using coupled biophysical and atmospheric radiative transfer models. Remote sensing of environment 87(1), 23–41 (2003)

    2003

  57. [64]

    Remote Sensing 14(5), 1114 (2022) 29

    Li, K.-Y., Lima, R., Burnside, N.G., Vahtm¨ ae, E., Kutser, T., Sepp, K., Cabral Pinheiro, V.H., Yang, M.-D., Vain, A., Sepp, K.: Toward automated machine learning-based hyperspectral image analysis in crop yield and biomass estimation. Remote Sensing 14(5), 1114 (2022) 29

    2022

  58. [65]

    IEEE Transactions on geoscience and remote sensing 34(4), 946–956 (2002)

    North, P.R.: Three-dimensional forest light interaction model using a monte carlo method. IEEE Transactions on geoscience and remote sensing 34(4), 946–956 (2002)

    2002

  59. [66]

    Remote Sensing 11(19), 2283 (2019)

    Bernardo, N., Carmo, A., Park, E., Alcˆ antara, E.: Retrieval of suspended par- ticulate matter in inland waters with widely differing optical properties using a semi-analytical scheme. Remote Sensing 11(19), 2283 (2019)

    2019

  60. [67]

    Remote sensing of environment 84(1), 1–15 (2003)

    Combal, B., Baret, F., Weiss, M., Trubuil, A., Mac´ e, D., Pragnere, A., Myneni, R., Knyazikhin, Y., Wang, L.: Retrieval of canopy biophysical variables from bidirectional reflectance: Using prior information to solve the ill-posed inverse problem. Remote sensing of environmen...

    2003

  61. [68]

    IEEE Transactions on knowledge and data engineering 29(10), 2318–2331 (2017)

    Karpatne, A., Atluri, G., Faghmous, J.H., Steinbach, M., Banerjee, A., Ganguly, A., Shekhar, S., Samatova, N., Kumar, V.: Theory-guided data science: A new paradigm for scientific discovery from data. IEEE Transactions on knowledge and data engineering 29(10), 2318–2331 (2017)

    2017

  62. [69]

    Remote Sensing of Environment 261, 112476 (2021)

    Brodrick, P.G., Thompson, D.R., Fahlen, J.E., Eastwood, M.L., Sarture, C.M., Lundeen, S.R., Olson-Duvall, W., Carmon, N., Green, R.O.: Generalized radia- tive transfer emulation for imaging spectroscopy reflectance retrievals. Remote Sensing of Environment 261, 112476 (2021)

    2021

  63. [70]

    ISPRS journal of photogrammetry and remote sensing 114, 24–31 (2016)

    Belgiu, M., Dr˘ agut ¸, L.: Random forest in remote sensing: A review of appli- cations and future directions. ISPRS journal of photogrammetry and remote sensing 114, 24–31 (2016)

    2016

  64. [71]

    Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 200, 107130 (2022)

    Soltanikazemi, M., Minaei, S., Shafizadeh-Moghadam, H., Mahdavian, A.: Field- scale estimation of sugarcane leaf nitrogen content using vegetation indices and spectral bands of sentinel-2: Application of random forest and support vector regression. Computers and Electronics in...

    2022

  65. [72]

    5 using fine-resolution satellite data in the megacity of beijing, china

    Li, R., Gong, J., Chen, L., Wang, Z.: Estimating ground-level pm2. 5 using fine-resolution satellite data in the megacity of beijing, china. Aerosol and Air Quality Research 15(4), 1347–1356 (2015)

    2015

  66. [73]

    Remote Sensing of Environment 311, 114317 (2024)

    Li, H., Li, F., Xiao, J., Chen, J., Lin, K., Bao, G., Liu, A., Wei, G.: A machine learning scheme for estimating fine-resolution grassland aboveground biomass over china with sentinel-1/2 satellite images. Remote Sensing of Environment 311, 114317 (2024)

    2024

  67. [74]

    IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems (2024)

    Su, Z., Shen, J., Sun, Y., Hu, R., Zhou, Q., Yong, B.: Deep spatio-temporal fuzzy model for ndvi forecasting. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems (2024)

    2024

  68. [75]

    International Journal of Applied Earth 30 Observation and Geoinformation 114, 103060 (2022)

    Ma, Y., Hu, Y., Moncrieff, G.R., Slingsby, J.A., Wilson, A.M., Maitner, B., Zhou, R.Z.: Forecasting vegetation dynamics in an open ecosystem by integrating deep learning and environmental variables. International Journal of Applied Earth 30 Observation and Geoinformation 114, ...

    2022

  69. [76]

    Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 56, 102023 (2024)

    Zheng, X., Zhang, S., Yang, S., Huang, J., Meng, X., Zhang, J., Bai, Y.: Pre- dicting future evapotranspiration based on remote sensing and deep learning. Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 56, 102023 (2024)

    2024

  70. [77]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 (2020)

    Dosovitskiy, A., Beyer, L., Kolesnikov, A., Weissenborn, D., Zhai, X., Unterthiner, T., Dehghani, M., Minderer, M., Heigold, G., Gelly, S., et al.: An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  71. [78]

    Artificial Intelligence Review 58(9), 272 (2025)

    Rehman, M.Z.U., Islam, S.M.S., Blake, D., Ulhaq, A., Janjua, N.: Deep learning for land use classification: a systematic review of hs-lidar imagery. Artificial Intelligence Review 58(9), 272 (2025)

    2025

  72. [79]

    International Journal of Remote Sensing 43(2), 630–648 (2022)

    Xie, Y.: Combining ceres-wheat model, sentinel-2 data, and deep learning method for winter wheat yield estimation. International Journal of Remote Sensing 43(2), 630–648 (2022)

    2022

  73. [81]

    Neural Computing and Applications 37(5), 3809–3826 (2025)

    Arumai Shiney, S., Geetha, R.: Agbunet: an enhanced cnn-unet architecture for the prediction of above ground biomass using deep learning. Neural Computing and Applications 37(5), 3809–3826 (2025)

    2025

  74. [82]

    Remote Sensing of Environment 310, 114241 (2024)

    Cao, Y., Weng, Q.: A deep learning-based super-resolution method for building height estimation at 2.5 m spatial resolution in the northern hemisphere. Remote Sensing of Environment 310, 114241 (2024)

    2024

  75. [83]

    International Journal of Remote Sensing 45(19-20), 7753– 7774 (2024)

    Di, S.-C., Li, Z.-L., Ren, Y., Liu, M., Jiang, Y.-Z., Zheng, F.-D., Li, X.-M., Qi, Y.- B., Liu, H.-L., Tang, R.: Estimation of regional evapotranspiration based on the decouple model and remote sensing information——a case study in beijing city and nearby region. International ...

    2024

  76. [84]

    IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters 19, 1–5 (2021)

    Rains, D., Lievens, H., De Lannoy, G.J., McCabe, M.F., Jeu, R.A., Miralles, D.G.: Sentinel-1 backscatter assimilation using support vector regression or the water cloud model at european soil moisture sites. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters 19, 1–5 (2021)

    2021

  77. [85]

    IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 60, 1–11 (2021)

    Efremova, N., Seddik, M.E.A., Erten, E.: Soil moisture estimation using sentinel- 1/-2 imagery coupled with cyclegan for time-series gap filing. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 60, 1–11 (2021)

    2021

  78. [86]

    Journal of Hydrology 635, 131203 (2024)

    Chen, T., Peng, L., Wang, Y.: Prediction of global water use efficiency and its 31 response to vapor pressure deficit and soil moisture coupling in the 21st century. Journal of Hydrology 635, 131203 (2024)

    2024

  79. [87]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.03351 (2023)

    Fan, L., Neto, J.F.S.R.: Using neural networks for fast sar roughness estimation of high resolution images. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.03351 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Remote sensing of environment 221, 635–649 (2019)

    Zhao, W., Duan, S.-B., Li, A., Yin, G.: A practical method for reducing ter- rain effect on land surface temperature using random forest regression. Remote sensing of environment 221, 635–649 (2019)

    2019

  81. [89]

    Remote Sensing 15(14), 3534 (2023)

    Adjovu, G.E., Stephen, H., James, D., Ahmad, S.: Measurement of total dis- solved solids and total suspended solids in water systems: A review of the issues, conventional, and remote sensing techniques. Remote Sensing 15(14), 3534 (2023)

    2023

  82. [90]

    GIScience & Remote Sensing 61(1), 2393489 (2024)

    Moon, J., Suh, S., Jung, S., Baek, S.-S., Pyo, J.: Deep learning-based mapping of total suspended solids in rivers across south korea using high resolution satellite imagery. GIScience & Remote Sensing 61(1), 2393489 (2024)

    2024

  83. [91]

    Water Research 229, 119478 (2023)

    Harkort, L., Duan, Z.: Estimation of dissolved organic carbon from inland waters at a large scale using satellite data and machine learning methods. Water Research 229, 119478 (2023)

    2023

  84. [92]

    Computers and electronics in agriculture 190, 106480 (2021)

    Li, Y., Liu, H., Ma, J., Zhang, L.: Estimation of leaf area index for winter wheat at early stages based on convolutional neural networks. Computers and electronics in agriculture 190, 106480 (2021)

    2021

  85. [93]

    IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine 9(3), 174–180 (2021)

    Sumbul, G., De Wall, A., Kreuziger, T., Marcelino, F., Costa, H., Benevides, P., Caetano, M., Demir, B., Markl, V.: Bigearthnet-mm: A large-scale, mul- timodal, multilabel benchmark archive for remote sensing image classification and retrieval [software and data sets]. IEEE Ge...

    2021

  86. [94]

    IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine 11(3), 98–106 (2023)

    Wang, Y., Braham, N.A.A., Xiong, Z., Liu, C., Albrecht, C.M., Zhu, X.X.: Ssl4eo-s12: A large-scale multimodal, multitemporal dataset for self-supervised learning in earth observation [software and data sets]. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine 11(3), 98–106 (2023)

    2023

  87. [95]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp

    Bastani, F., Wolters, P., Gupta, R., Ferdinando, J., Kembhavi, A.: Sat- laspretrain: A large-scale dataset for remote sensing image understanding. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 16772–16782 (2023)

    2023

  88. [96]

    In: 2021 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium IGARSS, pp

    Sykas, D., Papoutsis, I., Zografakis, D.: Sen4agrinet: A harmonized multi- country, multi-temporal benchmark dataset for agricultural earth observation machine learning applications. In: 2021 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium IGARSS, pp. 5830–5833 (202...

    2021

  89. [97]

    In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pp

    Fogel, F., Perron, Y., Besic, N., Saint-Andr´ e, L., Pellissier-Tanon, A., Schwartz, M., Boudras, T., Fayad, I., d’Aspremont, A., Landrieu, L., et al.: Open-canopy: Towards very high resolution forest monitoring. In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition C...

    2025

  90. [98]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36, 59787–59807 (2023)

    Stewart, A., Lehmann, N., Corley, I., Wang, Y., Chang, Y.-C., Ait Ali Braham, N.A., Sehgal, S., Robinson, C., Banerjee, A.: Ssl4eo-l: Datasets and foundation models for landsat imagery. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36, 59787–59807 (2023)

    2023

  91. [99]

    Pattern Recognition (6) (2014)

    Zollanvari, A., Dougherty, E.R.: Moments and root-mean-square error of the bayesian mmse estimator of classification error in the gaussian model. Pattern Recognition (6) (2014)

    2014

  92. [100]

    Geoscientific Model Development Discussions 2022, 1–10 (2022)

    Hodson, T.O.: Root mean square error (rmse) or mean absolute error (mae): When to use them or not. Geoscientific Model Development Discussions 2022, 1–10 (2022)

    2022

  93. [101]

    Peerj computer science 7, 623 (2021)

    Chicco, D., Warrens, M.J., Jurman, G.: The coefficient of determination r- squared is more informative than smape, mae, mape, mse and rmse in regression analysis evaluation. Peerj computer science 7, 623 (2021)

    2021

  94. [102]

    Applied Sciences 12(8), 3754 (2022)

    Mudeng, V., Kim, M., Choe, S.-w.: Prospects of structural similarity index for medical image analysis. Applied Sciences 12(8), 3754 (2022)

    2022

  95. [103]

    Applied Sciences 14(14), 6370 (2024) 33

    Bae, Y.-Y., Cho, D.-J., Jung, K.-H.: A new reversible data hiding method using a proportional relation between peak signal-to-noise ratio and embedding capacity on convolutional neural network. Applied Sciences 14(14), 6370 (2024) 33

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.