Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 17 references

FLAME embeds the Beer-Lambert matched filter directly into a neural network, and on the STARCOP benchmark this physics-guided design reports the highest detection accuracy and roughly three times fewer pixel-level false positives than the s

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 12:33 UTC pith:RGARGLNF

load-bearing objection Real architectural contribution with a clean derivation, but the headline accuracy claim is inflated by model selection on the test set — fixable, but the reported F1 is not an independent estimate. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2606.01577 v2 pith:RGARGLNF submitted 2026-06-01 cs.CV

FLAME: Physics-Guided Neural Operators for Onboard Satellite Methane Detection in Hyperspectral Imagery

Junhyuk Heo , Junghwan Park , Sangcheol Sim , Beomkyu Choi , Woojin Cho This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords methane plume detectionhyperspectral imageryneural operatormatched filterBeer-Lambert lawonboard satellite processingfalse positive rateFourier neural operator
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper tries to show that methane plume detection from hyperspectral satellite imagery can be accurate and fast enough to run onboard a spacecraft. FLAME builds the Beer-Lambert absorption law directly into a neural network: a Fourier-based neural operator estimates a per-pixel background and spectral weight, and a parameter-free inner-product layer computes the detection score. On the STARCOP benchmark it reports the highest F1 among evaluated methods, about three times lower pixel-level false positives than the strongest neural baseline, the fewest parameters (0.78M), and inference times within the latency budget of Jetson-class onboard hardware. If this holds, methane ultra-emitters could be flagged within minutes of an overflight instead of after days of ground processing.

Core claim

The central claim is that the classical log-domain matched filter—the standard physics-based methane detector—can be embedded as a fixed architectural layer rather than approximated externally. FLAME replaces the tile-wide background and covariance with pixel-wise estimates learned by a neural operator, computing the score α̂_i = (ℓ_i − ℓ̂B_i)^T (ŵ_i ⊙ s). Because the score layer is parameter-free and contains the classical log-domain matched filter as a special case, the network inherits the physics prior while learning to adapt it per pixel. The paper's evidence is that this design, trained with a curriculum that first mimics a classical matched filter and then lets the segmentation object

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the physics-guided score layer: a parameter-free inner product α̂_i = (ℓ_i − ℓ̂B_i)^T (ŵ_i ⊙ s), where ℓ̂B_i is a learned pixel-wise log-background, ŵ_i is a learned non-negative spectral weight, and s is the fixed methane absorption spectrum. This score is the numerator of the log-domain matched-filter estimate, and the paper proves the classical filter arises as the special case with constant background and weight. The surrounding U-FNO neural operator provides pixel-wise, globally informed estimates of the background and weight fields, but the score layer is what carries the physics.

Load-bearing premise

The log-domain Beer-Lambert model—log radiance equals log background plus methane column times a fixed absorption spectrum plus noise—is assumed to hold exactly, and the pixel-wise background and weights learned from airborne AVIRIS-NG tiles are assumed to transfer to spaceborne sensors and on-orbit conditions.

What would settle it

Train FLAME on the airborne benchmark, freeze the weights, and run it on spaceborne EMIT imagery with independently verified methane plumes; if pixel-level F1 collapses toward classical baselines or false positives jump on unplumed scenes, the cross-sensor transfer premise fails. A lab-level check: compare FLAME's score to known column enhancements on a controlled release scene; if the score saturates or turns nonlinear for strong plumes, the claim that the log-domain model is exact for strong emissions is falsified.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Onboard detection becomes plausible: 6.2 ms per 512×512 tile on an RTX 4090 and 36–226 ms on Jetson modules, within small-satellite power and latency budgets.
  • The low pixel-level false positive rate (8×10⁻⁴, roughly 3× below the nearest neural baseline) means fewer spurious alarm triggers and less wasted downlink if only flagged tiles are transmitted.
  • Because the score depends only on the log-radiance field and the absorption spectrum, the architecture should adapt to other SWIR spectrometers by swapping the spectrum and retraining on matched data.
  • The strict containment of the log-domain matched filter gives a principled fallback: the model's initial state is a classical detector, so the physics prior is guaranteed at initialization.
  • The ablation shows the physics score itself, not backbone capacity, drives the gain, implying the approach transfers to other gas-detection tasks with different absorption spectra.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: The component-wise ablation suggests a cheap two-tier deployment—a fixed-background, learned-weights variant as a screening stage, with the full model reserved for flagged tiles—could stretch limited onboard compute further.
  • Editorial inference: If the tile-shared background is indeed the main source of classical false positives, FLAME's advantage over matched filters should grow on heterogeneous scenes (urban, mixed land cover) and shrink on homogeneous ones; this is directly testable on the same benchmark.
  • Editorial inference: An immediate extension is to fine-tune the spectrum and heads on spaceborne EMIT or CHIME data; if F1 transfers without full retraining, the per-pixel background model is capturing physical rather than dataset-specific structure.
  • Editorial inference: Because the log-domain model is exact for strong plumes, FLAME's score (not just its binary mask) could potentially be calibrated to column enhancements, turning a detector into a quantitative emissions estimator—though the paper does not make that claim.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes FLAME, a physics-guided neural operator for methane plume detection in hyperspectral imagery. The architecture combines a UFNO backbone with two lightweight heads that predict pixel-wise log-background and spectral weights, and a parameter-free score layer implementing the log-domain matched-filter inner product with a fixed methane absorption spectrum. A scheduled auxiliary loss matches the MAG1C-SAS matched-filter output early in training and is annealed off. On the STARCOP benchmark (AVIRIS-NG airborne data), FLAME reports the highest F1 among evaluated methods (0.608), a pixel-level false positive rate roughly 3x lower than the strongest neural baseline, 0.78M parameters, and 6.2 ms per 512x512 tile on an RTX 4090; Jetson profiling is presented as onboard deployment evidence. Appendix A proves that the score layer contains the classical log-domain matched filter as a special case. Appendix F honestly acknowledges the absence of cross-sensor and in-orbit validation.

Significance. If the reported results survive a clean evaluation, the paper makes a solid contribution: it demonstrates that embedding the exact log-domain Beer-Lambert structure as a fixed inner-product layer, with only the background and spectral-weight fields learned, yields large gains over both classical matched filters and end-to-end segmenters at a fraction of the parameter count. The parameter-free score layer and the explicit generalization proof in Appendix A are strengths, and the component-wise ablations in Table 10 consistently attribute large F1 gains to the physics score. The limitations appendix is candid. However, the headline benchmark claim is currently undermined by a methodological flaw: the test set has been used for architecture and component selection, so the reported F1 and margins are not independent held-out estimates. The deployment claim is also stronger than the evidence, since it rests on laboratory Jetson profiling and an untested assumption of transfer from airborne AVIRIS-NG to spaceborne sensors.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix B and C; Tables 1, 2, 7, 10] The central benchmark claim is not backed by a clean held-out evaluation. Appendix B states 'no separate validation split' and that all metrics are reported on the 342-tile test set. Appendix C uses Table 7, computed on that test set, to select UFNO among six backbones ('UFNO leads in F1... which is why we adopt it'). Tables 2 and 10 also report test-set ablations (single seed) used to justify the physics score, learned background, and learned weights. Therefore the reported F1=0.608 and the 9.3-point margin over SegFormer(CU) are not independent estimates; they are the result of model/component selection on the test set. This is load-bearing for the paper's main claim of 'highest detection accuracy.' Please introduce a validation split (e.g., hold out a subset of the 3,425 training tiles), perform all architecture and component selection on it, retrain the final configuration on train+v
  2. [Section 5.5; Appendix F; Abstract] The deployment claim is stronger than the evidence. The abstract and conclusion state FLAME 'runs within the latency budget of onboard satellite hardware' and is 'directly deployable.' The measurements are laboratory Jetson profiles in FP32, on a fixed set of tiles, with no radiation or thermal-vacuum testing. Appendix F explicitly defers in-orbit validation and cross-sensor transfer (EMIT, SBG) to future work. Moreover, the paper never defines the latency budget it claims to meet. Since the model is trained and evaluated only on airborne AVIRIS-NG data, the fixed absorption spectrum and learned pixel-wise fields are not demonstrated to transfer to spaceborne sensors. Please rephrase the deployment conclusions as a lab-based feasibility characterization, specify the assumed latency budget, or add targeted transfer experiments (e.g., EMIT imagery or simulated spaceborne radiances) if the
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.2; Appendix B] The score normalization is described as 'clipping to [0, τmax]' but τmax is never defined or reported. Please specify its value and how it is determined, alongside τ=1750.
  2. [Section 4.1; Eq. (5)] The paper states that off-diagonal noise correlations are 'absorbed by the backbone's global spectral mixing.' This is an unvalidated modeling assumption. Please discuss it as a limitation or test it by ablating a full covariance head.
  3. [Table 1 and Table 7] The FLAME F1 in Table 1 is 0.608±0.005 (3 seeds), but Tables 2 and 7 report 0.603 without specifying the number of seeds. Reconcile these values and report seed counts for all ablations and backbone comparisons.
  4. [Table 1 and Appendix B] Classical matched-filter scores are said to be 'reproduced from (Herec et al., 2025).' State explicitly which numbers were recomputed in this paper's environment versus copied from the reference, and confirm that the same thresholds and normalization were used.
  5. [Eq. (4)] The notation in the MAG1C update equation is hard to parse due to an unmatched parenthesis and the fraction layout. Please format the equation clearly so the numerator and denominator are unambiguous.
  6. [Figures 1 and 5] The plume-size binned F1 and FPR plots are computed on the test set; they inherit the validation-split issue in major comment 1. Please update these figures after the re-evaluation, or state that they are illustrative of the selected model.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Headline test F1 is the same criterion used to choose the UFNO backbone on the test set (no validation split), so the benchmark claim is a circular estimate; the physics-guided derivation itself is self-contained.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Appendix B (Dataset) and Appendix C (Neural Operator Backbone Comparison), reported in Table 1]
    "We followed the train/test partition released with STARCOP ... using 3,425 tiles for training and 342 tiles for held-out evaluation, with no separate validation split. ... As shown in Table 7, UFNO leads in F1 and IoU while remaining among the most parameter-efficient and fastest options. ... UFNO therefore offers the best joint trade-off across detection accuracy, parameter count, and inference speed, which is why we adopt it as the FLAME backbone."

    The same 342-tile test set is used twice: first to select the backbone (UFNO is chosen because it 'leads in F1' on the test set), and then to report the headline F1=0.608 as a held-out result. With no separate validation split, the reported accuracy is the criterion used for model selection, so the claim of 'highest detection accuracy' is not an independent estimate; it is optimistically biased by construction.

full rationale

The physics-guided derivation is not circular: Eq. (10) follows from the external Beer-Lambert log-domain model Eq. (5), the STARCOP annotations are independent human labels, and the MAG1C-SAS auxiliary loss is annealed to zero before final evaluation, so the method does not reduce to its teacher or to its inputs. Appendix A's 'special case' construction is an expressiveness claim, not a performance prediction, and the scalar tau normalization is a training-set calibration that does not set the final decision threshold. The load-bearing circularity is in the benchmark evaluation: Appendix B states there is no separate validation split, and Appendix C uses the test set's F1 to select the UFNO backbone; the same test F1 is then reported in Table 1 as the headline 'highest detection accuracy.' This makes the central empirical claim a selected-on-test estimate rather than an independent held-out result. The method itself retains independent content, so the circularity is partial, not total.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model's central claim rests on the physical log-domain Beer-Lambert model, the fixed methane spectrum from prior literature, the sufficiency of the STARCOP training distribution, and the reliability of human plume annotations. τ and λρ are fitted/hand-chosen constants. No invented physical entities.

free parameters (2)
  • τ (score normalization constant) = 1750
    Fixed normalization for α̂, determined from log-domain MAG1C-SAS statistics on the training set (§4.2, Appendix B). Rescales the score but does not change detection ranking; still a fitted value.
  • λρ (auxiliary loss pixel weighting) = 10
    Weight in ρ_i = 1 + λρ·α̂^SAS_i that up-weights pixels with high teacher response in the auxiliary loss (§4.3). Chosen by hand, affects the distillation curriculum.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Log-domain Beer-Lambert linearization ℓ_i = ℓ^B_i + α_i s + η_i (Eq. 5) is exact for all plume intensities.
    Physical model underlying the matched filter and FLAME's score; assumes a fixed, known methane absorption spectrum s and that all deviations from log-background are methane plus noise (§3.2).
  • domain assumption The fixed methane absorption spectrum s from AVIRIS-NG literature applies unchanged to STARCOP and future spaceborne sensors.
    Used in Eq. (10) and the parameterization C^{-1}s → ŵ⊙s; cross-sensor transfer is deferred to future work (§5.1, Appendix F).
  • domain assumption Neural operator capacity is sufficient to learn pixel-wise log-background and spectral-weight fields from 3,425 training tiles.
    Learning-theoretic premise of the method; no proof beyond the empirical results (§4.1, §5.1).
  • domain assumption STARCOP human plume annotations are a reliable target for supervised training and evaluation.
    All metrics are computed against these masks; potential label noise is not quantified (§5.1).
  • ad hoc to paper Off-diagonal noise correlations can be absorbed by the backbone's global spectral mixing rather than modeled explicitly in the weight head.
    Paper states off-diagonal correlations are not modeled inside f_sw but 'absorbed by the backbone Φ' (§4.2); a design assertion without direct evidence.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20012 in / 13567 out tokens · 126300 ms · 2026-08-02T12:33:44.241118+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Methane is a major driver of near-term climate change, and rapidly identifying its emission sources is a critical climate intervention. Spaceborne hyperspectral imagery is the primary tool for this task, but the volume of data produced by each sensor makes ground-based detection impractical and necessitates onboard detection. Classical methods incur prohibitive computational cost on onboard hardware, while deep learning models are fast but fall short on detection quality. We propose FLAME, a physics-guided neural operator that builds the physics of methane absorption directly into its architecture. On the methane detection benchmark, FLAME achieves the highest detection accuracy among all evaluated methods, reduces the pixel-level false positive rate by nearly $3\times$ over the strongest neural baseline, uses the fewest parameters among learned baselines, and runs within the latency budget of onboard satellite hardware.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.01577 by Beomkyu Choi, Junghwan Park, Junhyuk Heo, Sangcheol Sim, Woojin Cho.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Methane absorption spectrum in the SWIR window rele￾vant to plume detection. The broad SWIR bands of multispectral sensors (Sentinel-2, WorldView-3) cannot resolve the narrow ab￾sorption features near 2122 − 2488 nm. & Markham, 2025), which adapt SegFormer (Xie et al., 2021) and EfficientViT (Cai et al., 2023) to raw hyperspec￾tral input, remove the matched filter entirely but discard the absorption prior … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Overview of FLAME. A neural operator predicts pixel￾wise backgrounds and spectral weights, combined with the fixed CH4 prior to yield a physics-guided score and plume mask. to enforce non-negativity, wˆi = softplus(Wswzi + bsw) with θsw = (Wsw, bsw). wˆi represents a pixel-adaptive generalization of the diagonal part of C −1 i . Off-diagonal correlations in Ci are not modeled inside fsw, which outputs a ve… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative Comparison on the STARCOP test set. Three test tiles representing a strong-plume regime (top), a weak-plume regime (middle), and a plume-free regime (bottom), shown for UNet+MAG1C-SAS, SegFormer with the ConvUp decoder, and FLAME. Prediction panels overlay true positives in green, false positives in blue, and false negatives in red on a darkened RGB backdrop. The ground-truth column shows the b… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of speed, accuracy, and size across the evaluated methods. Marker size indicates the number of trainable parameters. False-positive behavior across plume sizes. The plume-size analysis in the main text reports F1 scores across bins defined by the number of ground-truth methane pixels. Here we provide the complementary false-positive analysis. This analysis is important because methane plume dete… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evolution of the FLAME physics score across the two-phase training curriculum described in the main text. Columns show the RGB tile, the MAG1C-SAS reference, the FLAME physics score after Phase 1, the FLAME physics score after Phase 2, and the ground-truth plume mask. Curriculum evolution. As described in the main text, the curriculum first aligns the physics score with the MAG1C-SAS teacher and then shift… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison between the FLAME physics score and the probability map produced by the segmentation head. Each column corresponds to a single test tile. Score-to-mask refinement. The physics score is an intermediate methane evidence map, while the segmentation head converts it into the probability map that feeds the final binary mask through thresholding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Probability maps produced by physics-integration variants of FLAME. Columns show RGB, no physics score, fixed background with fixed spectral weights, fixed background with learned spectral weights, full FLAME, and the ground-truth plume mask, where bg denotes background [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Additional qualitative comparison on STARCOP test tiles. Columns show RGB, UNet+MAG1C-SAS, SegFormer with the ConvUp decoder, FLAME, and the ground-truth mask. Prediction panels overlay true positives in green, false positives in blue, and false negatives in red on a darkened RGB backdrop. From top to bottom, rows show two strong-plume tiles, a weak-plume tile with a zoomed inset of the plume region, an o… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Per-pixel outputs on a strong-plume test tile. Columns show the RGB tile, the probability map, the final binary mask, the ground-truth plume mask, and the TP/FP/FN overlay. From top to bottom, rows show MAG1C-tile, UNet+MAG1C-SAS, UNet with the MobileNetV2 encoder, SegFormer with the ConvUp decoder, and FLAME. For the MAG1C-tile row, the probability-map column instead reports the matched-filter enhancemen… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Per-pixel outputs on a weak-plume test tile. Row and column layouts follow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Per-pixel outputs on a plume-free test tile. Row and column layouts follow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_13.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [2]

    Columns show the RGB tile, the MAG1C-SAS reference, the FLAME physics score after Phase 1, the FLAME physics score after Phase 2, and the ground-truth plume mask

    GT Figure 7.Evolution of the FLAME physics score across the two-phase training curriculum described in the main text. Columns show the RGB tile, the MAG1C-SAS reference, the FLAME physics score after Phase 1, the FLAME physics score after Phase 2, and the ground-truth plume mask. Curriculum evolution.As described in the main text, the curriculum first ali...

    arXiv

  2. [6]

    and Rast, M

    Nieke, J. and Rast, M. Towards the copernicus hyperspectral imaging mission for the environment (chime). InIgarss 2018-2018 ieee international geoscience and remote sens- ing symposium, pp. 157–159. IEEE,

    2018

  3. [7]

    Live twinning: A vision of ml enabled assets in leo for rapid response to natural catas- trophes

    Parr, J., Acciarini, G., Bridges, C., Mateo-Garcia, G., Portales-Julia, E., Purcell, C., Ruzicka, V ., Spalding, A., and Veitch-Michaelis, J. Live twinning: A vision of ml enabled assets in leo for rapid response to natural catas- trophes. InIGARSS 2024-2024 IEEE International Geo- science and Remote Sensing Symposium, pp. 685–688. IEEE,

    2024

  4. [10]

    C., Klein, L., Da Silva, A

    10 FLAME: Physics-Guided Neural Operators for Onboard Methane Detection Wong, K. C., Klein, L., Da Silva, A. F., Wang, H., Singh, J., and Syeda-Mahmood, T. Image-based soil organic carbon remote sensing from satellite images with fourier neural operator and structural similarity. InIGARSS 2023- 2023 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposi...

    2023

  5. [11]

    11 FLAME: Physics-Guided Neural Operators for Onboard Methane Detection A. FLAME Generalizes the Log-Domain Matched Filter In Section 4 we claimed that FLAME strictly contains the classical log-domain matched filter as a special case of its hypothesis class. This appendix formalizes the claim and exhibits an explicit parameter setting that realizes the re...

    2023

  6. [12]

    Each spectral mixing layer retains m1 =m 2 = 12 Fourier modes per spatial axis

    with hidden width d= 14 and LF = 3 FNO blocks followed by LU = 3 U-FNO blocks. Each spectral mixing layer retains m1 =m 2 = 12 Fourier modes per spatial axis. Table 5 summarizes these settings. Table 5.Architectural hyperparameters of FLAME. Hyperparameter Value Backbone hidden widthd14 Fourier modesm 1, m2 12, 12 FNO blocksL F 3 U-FNO blocksL U 3 Trainin...

    2017

  7. [13]

    and MF (Manolakis & Shaw, 2002; Funk et al., 2002), 0.03 for ACE (Chang & Heinz, 2000), and 300 for both MAG1C (Foote et al.,

    2002

  8. [14]

    The two-stage pipelines, namely UNet paired with MAG1C and LinkNet paired with MAG1C-SAS, retain the HyperSTARCOP normalization protocol of (Herec et al., 2025)

    and MAG1C-SAS (Herec et al., 2025). The two-stage pipelines, namely UNet paired with MAG1C and LinkNet paired with MAG1C-SAS, retain the HyperSTARCOP normalization protocol of (Herec et al., 2025). The end-to-end baselines are UNet with a MobileNet-V2 encoder (Sandler et al., 2018), SegFormer-B0 (Xie et al., 2021), and EfficientViT-B1 (Cai et al., 2023). ...

    2025

  9. [16]

    Variant Layers Width Modes / sub-bands Notes FLAME (UFNO)3 + 314m 1 =m 2 = 12SE block and mini-UNet local path FNO 4 14m 1 =m 2 = 32canonical formulation F-FNO 8 48m= 32per axis factorized 1D spectral convolution Tucker-FNO 4 rank 64m= 32per axis Tucker decomposition UNO 7w= 8, f= 0.75m= [24,14,8,8,8,14,22]U-shape channel schedule WNO 3 14 db6, level 6 DW...

    2025

  10. [2005]

    Kumar, S., Arevalo, I., Iftekhar, A., and Manjunath, B

    doi: 10.1109/TSP.2004.840823. Kumar, S., Arevalo, I., Iftekhar, A., and Manjunath, B. Methanemapper: Spectral absorption aware hyperspectral transformer for methane detection. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 17609–17618,

    arXiv 2004

  11. [2013]

    L., P´ean, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y ., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M

    Masson-Delmotte, V ., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S. L., P´ean, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y ., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M. I., et al.Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press,

    2021

  12. [2018]

    R., Poulter, B., Bousquet, P., Canadell, J

    Saunois, M., Stavert, A. R., Poulter, B., Bousquet, P., Canadell, J. G., Jackson, R. B., Raymond, P. A., Dlu- gokencky, E. J., Houweling, S., Patra, P. K., et al. The global methane budget 2000–2017.Earth System Science Data Discussions, 2019:1–136,

    2000

  13. [2020]

    and Hutter, F

    Loshchilov, I. and Hutter, F. Decoupled weight decay regu- larization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  14. [2021]

    Optimizing methane detection on board satellites: Speed, accuracy, and low- power solutions for resource-constrained hardware

    Herec, J., R˚uˇziˇcka, V ., and Pitoˇn´ak, R. Optimizing methane detection on board satellites: Speed, accuracy, and low- power solutions for resource-constrained hardware. In 2025 European Data Handling & Data Processing Con- ference (EDHPC), pp. 1–9. IEEE,

    2025

  15. [2022]

    Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equa- tions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.08895,

    Li, Z., Kovachki, N., Azizzadenesheli, K., Liu, B., Bhat- tacharya, K., Stuart, A., and Anandkumar, A. Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equa- tions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.08895,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  16. [2024]

    Fourcastnet: A global data-driven high-resolution weather model us- ing adaptive fourier neural operators.arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.11214,

    Pathak, J., Subramanian, S., Harrington, P., Raja, S., Chattopadhyay, A., Mardani, M., Kurth, T., Hall, D., Li, Z., Azizzadenesheli, K., et al. Fourcastnet: A global data-driven high-resolution weather model us- ing adaptive fourier neural operators.arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.11214,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  17. [2025]

    within ±0.005. C. Neural Operator Backbone Comparison Table 7.Neural operator backbone comparison within the FLAME physics-head framework. The physics heads, segmentation head, and training schedule are kept fixed, so this comparison isolates the effect of the operator backbone from the physics-guided formulation. Pixel FPR is reported as×10 −4. Variant F...

    arXiv