LEPA: Learning Geometric Equivariance in Satellite Remote Sensing Data with a Predictive Architecture
Authors: Erik Scheurer, Rocco Sedona, Stefan Kesselheim, Gabriele Cavallaro
Organizations: Jülich Supercomputing Centre (JSC), Forschungszentrum Jülich, 52428 Jülich, Germany · Institute for Visualization and Interactive Systems (VIS), University of Stuttgart, 70569 Stuttgart · School of Engineering and Natural Sciences (SENS), University of Iceland, 102 Reykjavík, Iceland
Geospatial foundation models provide precomputed embeddings that serve as compact feature vectors for large-scale satellite remote sensing data. While these embeddings can reduce data-transfer bottlenecks and computational costs, Earth observation (EO) applications can still face geometric mismatches between user-defined areas of interest and the fixed precomputed embedding grid. Standard latent-space interpolation is unreliable in this setting because the embedding manifold is highly non-convex, yielding representations that do not correspond to realistic inputs. We verify this using Prithvi-EO-2.0 to understand the shortcomings of interpolation applied to patch embeddings. As a substitute, we propose a Learned Equivariance-Predicting Architecture (LEPA). Instead of averaging vectors, LEPA conditions a predictor on geometric augmentations to directly predict the transformed embedding. We evaluate LEPA on NASA/USGS Harmonized Landsat-Sentinel (HLS) imagery and ImageNet-1k. Experiments show that standard interpolation achieves a mean reciprocal rank (MRR) below 0.2, whereas LEPA increases MRR to over 0.8, enabling accurate geometric adjustment without re-encoding.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: LEPA training architecture: the original input is passed to the student encoder which produces patch embeddings. These patch embeddings form the context to the predictor along with transformation parameters. Predicted embeddings are compared against the teacher output which are computed from a transformed input image. Masking is omitted for visual clarity.
Fig. 2: Input and reconstructions of rotated and downsampled images using a finetuned version of Prithvi [ 5 ] . The bottom left images depict reconstructions from a transformed latent, the bottom right images are reconstructions from rotations in image space as a baseline.
Fig. 3: Box-plot of the normalized score based on the results of Table I .
Fig. 4: Example images with class-specific noise. Bottom rows show the first two PCA components (per image) mapped to a color wheel. In the ImageNet model without a CLS-token, background embeddings resemble the subject, a pattern not seen consistently in HLS data.
Model
Dataset
CLS
Pos. Enc.
MRR
After Finetune
I-JEPA
IN-1k
No
default
0.1837
N/A
I-JEPA
IN-1k
Yes
default
0.2108
N/A
I-JEPA
HLS
No
default
0.1826
N/A
I-JEPA
HLS
Yes
default
0.1839
N/A
LEPA
HLS
No
CondPos
0.6975
0.8062
LEPA
HLS
Yes
CondPos
0.6630
0.7994
TABLE I: MRR of models given different hyperparameters with and without finetuning of the predictor. For Prithvi and I-JEPA, the predicted embedding is obtained with nearest-neighbor interpolation. Other interpolation methods decrease MRR.
Fig. 5: Angle sweep of a selected image comparing the first two PCA components using interpolation in image space (Targets), the predictions using finetuned LEPA, and nearest neighbor interpolation.
Fig. 6: Grid that is used for sinusoidal positional encodings by default, ours without a transformation and ours with a rotation angle of 10°.
Fig. 7: Comparison of positional encodings for each embedding dimension out of 768. Each row consists of one line of equation 2 .
Model
Dataset
CLS
PosEnc
Params
HLSBurnscars
Sen1Floods11
MADOS
AI4SmallFarms
PASTIS
DynamicEarthNet
SpaceNet7
I-JEPA
IN-1k
No
default
85.8M
77.15
71.75
59.28
26.58
21.31
35.13
60.02
I-JEPA
IN-1k
Yes
default
85.8M
77.58
74.74
65.59
25.98
24.07
37.68
61.12
I-JEPA
HLS
No
default
86.4M
82.82
86.69
45.74
24.33
33.00
29.95
56.93
I-JEPA
HLS
Yes
default
86.4M
83.08
85.87
46.40
25.48
35.03
31.46
56.67
I-JEPA
HLS
Yes
CondPos
86.4M
81.73
85.88
47.59
24.58
34.43
32.64
56.64
LEPA
HLS
No
CondPos
86.4M
83.03
87.29
51.40
23.82
33.84
33.84
56.17
TABLE II: Mean IoU comparison of pretrained foundation models and JEPA variations of the PANGAEA benchmark [ 22 ] . The best and second best models are marked for each dataset.
Geospatial foundation models increasingly expose pixel-level embedding products that can be downloaded and reused without access to the underlying encoder. In this setting, downstream tasks with patch- or region-level labels require a post-hoc aggregation step that maps dense pixel embeddings to a single representation. The default choice, mean pooling, discards within-patch variability and can underperform under spatial distribution shift. To study this setting, we introduce EuroSAT-Embed: 81,000 embedding GeoTIFFs derived from three foundation models: AlphaEarth, OlmoEarth, and Tessera. Using these fixed embedding products, we benchmark 11 training-free pooling methods and 2 train-set-fitted baselines under both random and geographically disjoint test splits. Richer pooling schemes reduce the geographic generalization gap by over 50% relative to mean pooling and improve accuracy by up to 6% on spatial splits. We recommend a three-tier strategy: (1) mean as a baseline, (2) stats pooling (min/max/mean/std) as the default at 4x the embedding dimension, and (3) covariance pooling for peak accuracy. Across all three embedding products, simple distributional statistics improve spatial-split performance over mean pooling.
Isaac Corley, Caleb Robinson, Inbal Becker-Reshef +1
Earth-observation (EO) foundation models provide reusable embeddings, yet downstream task accuracy does not reveal whether these representations encode geographic information, which may be beneficial for location-aware applications but potentially detrimental when representations invariant to geographic location are desired. We therefore evaluate the geographic coordinate robustness of Tessera v1, Tessera v1.1, and AlphaEarth by testing whether coordinates can be predicted from the embedding representations using 284 quality-verified European solar farms from 2024. We assessed geographic information content information through the association between cosine and geodesic distances and through prediction of projected coordinates in EPSG:3035. Embeddings from all three EO foundation models contain recoverable geographic information. All prediction models significantly outperform training-range uniform random sampling baselines, with AlphaEarth exhibiting the strongest distance association and lowest mean geodesic error. Both Tessera variants also yielded higher geographic distance correlations than the Sentinel-2 controls. These findings motivate geographic information content as an additional criterion for auditing EO foundation models.
Peiwen Zhang, Kristie Hu, Jovana Knezevic +2
University of Waterloo · University of Cambridge · Aalto University
In this work, we present LIANet (Location Is All You Need Network), a coordinate-based neural representation that models multi-temporal spaceborne Earth observation (EO) data for a given region of interest as a continuous spatiotemporal neural field. Given only spatial and temporal coordinates, LIANet reconstructs the corresponding satellite imagery. Once pretrained, this neural representation can be adapted to various EO downstream tasks, such as semantic segmentation or pixel-wise regression, importantly, without requiring access to the original satellite data. LIANet intends to serve as a user-friendly alternative to Geospatial Foundation Models (GFMs) by eliminating the overhead of data access and preprocessing for end-users and enabling fine-tuning solely based on labels. We demonstrate the pretraining of LIANet across target areas of varying sizes and show that fine-tuning it for downstream tasks achieves competitive performance compared to training from scratch or using established GFMs. The source code and datasets are publicly available at https://github.com/mojganmadadi/LIANet/tree/v1.0.1.
Mojgan Madadikhaljan, Jonathan Prexl, Isabelle Wittmann +2
University of the Bundeswehr Munich · IBM Research – Europe · Columbia University +1