Hugging Face Trending Papers

PiCo: Physics-Informed Concept Probing for Geo-Foundation Models

arXiv Computer Vision
Oct 16

PiCo: Physics-Informed Concept Probing for Geo-Foundation Models

PiCo is a post‑hoc framework that explains Geo‑foundation model predictions by identifying concept vectors in the model’s embedding space. It generates synthetic multispectral satellite data using a 3D radiative transfer model and a game engine to reveal physical sensitivities, then projects embeddings onto these vectors to quantify concept importance. Evaluations on three GFMs show that PiCo can recover most of the full‑embedding accuracy and uncover how different physical concepts influence predictions for tasks such as ground‑cover estimation and forest classification.

By Yihang She, Andrew Blake, Jianbo Qi, Srinivasan Keshav
arXiv Machine Learning
Jul 31

Foundation-Model Earth Representations Enable Regional-Scale Forest Aboveground Biomass Monitoring Across the Northeastern United States

arXiv:2607. 27217v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Forest aboveground biomass (AGB) is a critical indicator of ecosystem productivity and terrestrial carbon storage, yet regional carbon monitoring remains constrained by the sparse spatial and temporal availability of field inventories and airborne structural measurements.

By Shashika Lamahewage, Chandi Witharana
arXiv Computer Vision
Oct 8

Geometry-Centered 3D Latent World Models for Growing Surfaces

The paper introduces FOLIAGE, a geometry‑centered latent world model designed for systems that grow and change shape over time. FOLIAGE allocates higher‑resolution state to regions expected to grow while keeping mature areas compact, fusing RGB, point‑cloud, and mesh data into a deployable geometric state and conditioning dynamics on material controls. The authors evaluate the model on new benchmarks (SURF‑GARDEN and SURF‑BENCH) and demonstrate significant reductions in inverse‑material error, mesh forecasting error, and improved cross‑modal retrieval, with robust performance under sensor loss and correspondence corruption.

By Xiaoyi Liu, Hao Tang
arXiv AI
Sep 1

A Composition-Aware Pretraining Framework for Geospatial Foundation Models

The paper introduces a composition‑aware pretraining framework for geospatial foundation models that explicitly encodes fractional land‑cover mixtures as histogram targets for each satellite image cell. By using Earth Mover’s Distance to distill these composition targets into a 36.8 M‑parameter backbone, the authors demonstrate significant improvements on region‑level tasks such as zero‑shot image retrieval and scene classification, while maintaining competitive performance on fine‑grained tasks like segmentation and object detection. The method outperforms larger models (SatMAE and Prithvi‑EO‑2.0) and achieves a 55.6 % relative boost on the ForestNet‑12 dataset, evidencing the benefit of explicit composition modeling.

By Aryan Kashyap Naveen, Abhishek Srinivas, Pranav Moothedath, Shrutilipi Bhattacharjee
arXiv Computer Vision
Sep 22

Toward a foundation model for forest point clouds

arXiv:2609.24787v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Forest inventories increasingly rely on artificial intelligence (AI) models to derive forest attributes from large-scale 3D point clouds. Current model...

By Yuanwen Yue, Stefano Puliti, Damien Robert, Atakan Topalo\u{g}lu, Binbin Xiang, Maciej Wielgosz, Jan Dirk Wegner, Rasmus Astrup, Christian Rupprecht, Konrad Schindler
arXiv Machine Learning
Jun 19

Integrating national forest inventory, airborne lidar, and satellite imagery for wall-to-wall mapping of forest structure with computer vision

arXiv:2606. 20291v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Remote sensing is increasingly relied upon to deliver actionable science for forest and wildfire risk management across large landscapes.

By Luke J. Zachmann, David D. Diaz, Vincent A. Landau, Chelsey Walden-Schreiner, Tony Chang, Nathan E. Rutenbeck, Katharyn A. Duffy, Kiarie Ndegwa, Andreas Gros, Scott Conway, Guy Bayes
arXiv AI
Jul 22

Now We Know? A Systematic Comparison of TerraMind and THOR

arXiv:2607. 18504v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Benchmarks for Geospatial Foundation Models (GFMs) increasingly rank models by aggregate score, but such rankings obscure why models differ: how much of the gap is architecture, how much is decoder capacity, and how much is a use-case-specific artefact?

By Frederick Schindlegger, Kenzo Bounegta, Eva Gmelich Meijling, Johannes Jakubik, Arnt-B{\o}rre Salberg, Theodor Forgaard, Nicolas Longepe, Valerio Marsocci