Recent advances in remote sensing have led to an increase in the number of available foundation models; each trained on different modalities, datasets, and objectives, yet capturing only part of the vast geospatial knowledge landscape. While these models show strong results within their respective domains, their capabilities remain complementary rather than unified. Therefore, instead of choosing one model over another, we aim to combine their strengths into a single shared representation. We introduce GeoSANE, a geospatial model foundry that learns a unified neural representation from the weights of existing foundation models and task-specific models, able to generate novel neural networks weights on-demand. Given a target architecture, GeoSANE generates weights ready for finetuning for classification, segmentation, and detection tasks across multiple modalities. Models generated by GeoSANE consistently outperform their counterparts trained from scratch, match or surpass state-of-the-art remote sensing foundation models, and outperform models obtained through pruning or knowledge distillation when generating lightweight networks. Evaluations across ten diverse datasets and on GEO-Bench confirm its strong generalization capabilities. By shifting from pre-training to weight generation, GeoSANE introduces a new framework for unifying and transferring geospatial knowledge across models and tasks. Code is available at hsg-aiml.github.io/GeoSANE/.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Instead of pretraining geospatial (foundation) models from satellite data (top), GeoSANE proposes to leverage publicly available geospatial (foundation) models to train a shared latent representation encapsulating their knowledge to generate model weights tailored for specific downstream task (bottom).
Figure 2: Overview of our approach. (A) A heterogeneous collection of models, including ViTs, Swins, ResNets, UNets, and vision-language models, is gathered from HuggingFace. (B) A weight-space autoencoder is trained to reconstruct and embed these models into a shared latent representation. (C) From this latent space, GeoSANE can generate new models on demand for specific downstream tasks such as flood segmentation, object detection, or land-cover classification.
Figure 3: Our model collection retrieved from Hugging Face is diverse as seen in the distribution of model categories in our dataset.
Dataset
Backbone
from scratch
GeoSANE
Δ
EuroSAT [ 22 ]
ViT-L
95.0
99.1
+4.1
RESISC-45 [ 5 ]
ViT-L
78.0
96.5
+18.5
fMoW [ 6 ]
ViT-L
35.7
58.9
+23.2
Sen12Flood [ 36 ]
ViT-L
80.4
85.2
+4.8
Cal. Wildfires [ 4 ]
ViT-L
88.7
94.9
+6.2
BigEarthNet [ 49 ]
ViT-L
69.8
88.7
+18.9
Table 1: Comparison between training from scratch and finetuning a GeoSANE-generated model across all benchmark datasets. We report accuracy for single-label classification, mAP for multi-label classification, mIoU for segmentation and [email protected] for object detection. Best results are in bold . Δ indicates the absolute improvement over training from scratch.
Model
Backbone
Single-label
Multi-label
Segmentation
Object Det.
EuroSAT
RESISC45
fMoW
Sen12Flood
Wildfires
BigEarthNet
DFC2020
SpaceNet
Sen1Floods11
DIOR
SatMAE [ 7 ]
ViT-L
98.9
94.8
58.2
80.3
88.6
86.2
44.1
78.1
–
70.9
Scale-MAE [ 37 ]
ViT-L
99.1
95.7
–
82.6
90.8
87.9
–
78.9
74.1
73.8
RingMo [ 50 ]
Swin-B
–
95.7
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
75.9
CROMA [ 13 ]
ViT-L
99.4
–
59.0
83.4
93.3
88.3
49.8
–
90.9
–
GFM [ 32 ]
Swin-B
–
–
–
77.9
91.9
86.3
–
–
72.6
–
Table 2: Comparison with existing remote sensing foundation models on multiple remote sensing benchmarks. We report Overall Accuracy for single-label classification, mean Average Precision for multi-label classification, mean intersection over union for segmentation and mean Average Precision ([email protected]) for object detection. For GeoSANE, we report the mean ± standard deviation over three independently generated models per prompt (Section 3.3 ); for all baselines, we report the values reported in the respective papers. Best results are in bold , second best are underlined . Δ indicates the absolute improvement over the best baseline
Dataset
Magnitude Pruning (MP)
Variational Dropout (VP)
Knowledge Distillation (KD)
GeoSANE
Δ
Initial Models
Initial Models
Teachers
ViT-L (IN)
ScaleMAE
SatMAE
ViT-L (IN)
ScaleMAE
SatMAE
ViT-L (IN)
ScaleMAE
SatMAE
11M Params
RESISC-45
88.1
87.2
84.9
81.1
81.8
80.6
90.2
90.3
91.1
92.2
+1.1
EuroSAT
97.7
95.4
96.3
95.5
97.0
94.7
97.9
94.0
94.7
98.7
+0.8
fMoW
33.7
36.2
35.4
25.2
32.3
27.1
38.6
43.1
41.9
53.5
+10.4
BigEarthNet
45.6
59.1
62.1
38.2
44.9
49.8
65.7
67.3
66.5
83.7
+16.4
Table 3: Comparison of GeoSANE with pruning and distillation baselines. For Magnitude Pruning and Variational Dropout , we prune pretrained Remote Sensing Foundation Models (RSFMs) (ScaleMAE [ 37 ] and SatMAE [ 7 ] ) and an ImageNet(IN)-pretrained ViT-L to obtain versions with approximately 11M non-zero parameters (ResNet-18) and 5M (MobileNetV2) non-zero parameters. For Knowledge Distillation , the same RSFMs and the ImageNet ViT-L act as teachers, and the student networks are ResNet-18 models with 11M parameters or MobileNetV2 with 3.5M parameters. GeoSANE directly generates models of the target architecture and size. Best results are in bold , second best are underlined . Δ indicates the absolute improvement over the best baseline
Model
Single-label
Multi-label
EuroSAT
RESISC45
BigEarthNet
SatMAE [ 7 ]
98.9
94.8
86.2
Scale-MAE [ 37 ]
99.1
95.7
87.9
Merged Model
96.4
86.1
69.0
GeoSANE
99.1
96.5
88.7
Table 4: Comparison of a model generated by GeoSANE against a merged model obtained by combining RSFMs using DARE [ 63 ] , and against individual RSFMs.
Dataset
Model Prompt
GeoSANE
Δ
EuroSAT
97.8
99.1
+1.3
RESISC45
92.3
96.5
+4.2
fMoW
52.4
58.9
+6.5
Sen12Flood
84.2
85.2
+1.0
Cal. Wildfires
93.5
94.9
+1.4
BigEarthNet
82.6
88.7
+6.1
Table 5: Comparison between finetuning GeoSANE-generated models vs. direct finetuning of the models used as prompts for GeoSANE (ImageNet-pretrained ViT-L for classification and Swin-B for segmentation and detection). Both versions receive the same finetuning budget of 50 epochs.
Method
Backbone
m-eurosat
m-bigearthnet
m-so2sat
m-brick-kiln
SatMAE [ 7 ]
ViT-L
96.6
68.3
57.2
98.4
CROMA [ 13 ]
ViT-L
96.6
71.9
60.6
98.7
DOFA [ 61 ]
ViT-L
96.9
68.0
58.7
98.6
Prithvi-EO 2.0 [ 51 ]
ViT-L
96.5
69.0
54.6
98.6
AnySat [ 1 ]
ViT-B
95.9
70.3
51.8
98.6
Galileo [ 53 ]
ViT-B
97.7
70.7
63.3
98.7
Table 6: Results on four classification tasks from GEO-Bench [ 27 ] . All models are trained for 50 epochs. The reported numbers are overall accuracy (OA). The m-bigearthnet dataset is evaluated using mAP. For GeoSANE, we report the mean ± standard deviation over three independently generated models per prompt (Section 3.3 ); for all baselines, we report the values reported in the respective paper [ 8 ] . Best results are in bold , second best are underlined . Δ indicates the absolute improvement over the best baseline
Figure 4: UMAPs Visualization of the latent weight space of GeoSANE, colored by architecture (left) and modality (right). GeoSANE learns a compact shared latent representation of model weights from neural network models of different architecture and modalities (see Sec. 12 , in the supplementary material for details).
Dataset
MobileNet
ResNet-18
ViT-Base
ViT-Large
3.5M
11M
86M
300M
RESISC-45
70.0
92.2
91.4
96.5
EuroSAT
96.2
98.7
98.4
99.1
fMoW
17.7
53.5
56.7
58.9
BigEarthNet
73.3
83.7
86.9
88.7
Sen12Flood
70.2
84.0
83.1
85.2
Table 7: We evaluate diverse GeoSANE-generated models on three tasks. All generated models are fine-tuned for 50 epochs. Please note, all models (for (a), (b), (c)) are generated using the same learned shared latent representation.
Dataset
CV-only
CV+RS
Δ
EuroSAT
97.8
99.1
+1.3
RESISC45
93.4
96.5
+3.1
fMoW
53.1
58.9
+5.8
Sen12Flood
82.9
85.2
+2.3
Cal. Wildfires
92.2
94.9
+2.7
BigEarthNet
83.0
88.7
+5.7
Table 8: Downstream performance of models generated by GeoSANE trained without ( CV-only ) and with ( CV+RS ) remote sensing model weights.
Figure 5: Convergence comparison between GeoSANE-initialized models and models trained from scratch.
Task
Dataset
# of classes
Labels (per image)
Size
Channels
# of samples
Classification
RESISC45 [ 5 ]
45
single
256×256
RGB
31.5K
EuroSAT [ 22 ]
10
single
64×64
Multispectral
27K
fMoW [ 6 ]
63
single
512×512
Multispectral
>1M
BigEarthNet [ 49 ]
19
multiple
120×120
Multispectral
590K
Sen12Flood [ 36 ]
2 (binary)
single
256×256
SAR
16K
California Wildfires [ 4 ]
2 (binary)
single
224×224
SWIR
20K
Table 9: Overview of datasets, tasks, label types, and channels.
Figure 6: Qualitative Results of the Flood Segmentation task on the Sen1Floods11 dataset
Figure 7: Qualitative Results of the Object Detection task on DIOR dataset
Checkpoint
Checkpoint
Checkpoint
jaychempan__EarthSynth
azdin__llava-onevision-weather-dora
mayrajeo__marine-vessel-yolo
torchgeo__presto
azdin__llava-onevision-weather-qlora
torchgeo__core-dino
DevPanda004__PrithviFlood
azdin__qwen2-vl-weather-adalora
torchgeo__delineate-anything
Mahadih534__YoloV8-VisDrone
azdin__qwen2-vl-weather-dora
torchgeo__delineate-anything-s
Mahadih534__yolov8_ship_det_satellite
banghyunmin__Thermal_Video_Detection
torchgeo__yolo11s_marine_vessel_detection
RedbeardNZ__LatentSync-1.6
banghyunmin__thermal-people-yolov11n
wangyi111__Copernicus-FM
Table 10: Remote Sensing Model checkpoints used to train GeoSANE.
Modality
Number of Models
Multispectral
41
RGB
15
Multimodal
13
SAR
6
DEM
2
Unknown
26
Table 11: Distribution of modalities for the models used to train GeoSANE.
Task
Number of Models
Self-supervised representation learning
36
Semantic segmentation
19
Object detection
7
Classification
4
Generative models
3
Regression
2
Table 12: Distribution of primary tasks for the models used to train GeoSANE.
Geospatial foundation models have emerged as state-of-the-art methods for downstream Earth observation tasks. However, existing pretraining methodologies process imagery through a single-concept lens, failing to capture the highly compositional nature of complex satellite scenes. We propose a composition-aware pretraining framework that explicitly encodes fractional land-cover mixtures. Each satellite image cell is mapped to a histogram representing its fractional land-cover distribution, which we term the "composition target". These targets serve as the primary prediction objective and are distilled into the backbone using Earth Mover's Distance. Experimental evaluation shows that composition-aware pretraining yields substantial gains on region-level understanding tasks requiring semantic similarity judgment, including zero-shot image retrieval and scene classification, while remaining competitive on tasks requiring fine-grained spatial precision, such as segmentation and object detection. With a 36.8M-parameter backbone, our framework outperforms SatMAE and Prithvi-EO-2.0, which contain 303M and 600M parameters, respectively, in most retrieval and scene classification settings. On the fine-grained ForestNet-12 dataset, a rigorous testbed for compositional discrimination, our method boosts baseline mAP@10 from 0.279 to 0.434, a 55.6% relative improvement, providing direct evidence for the effectiveness of explicit composition modeling. The code implementation can be found at https://github.com/05kashyap/GFM_Composition_Pretraining
Geospatial foundation models pretrained on satellite imagery promise broad generalization across remote sensing tasks and regions, but their geographic transferability has not been systematically tested, especially in agriculture applications. This paper presents a controlled benchmark that evaluates three models, Prithvi, SpectralGPT, and SatMAE, on multi-temporal crop segmentation and change detection across four U.S. states, Iowa, North Carolina, California, and Minnesota. By assigning each train, validation, and test split to a separate region, we measure how well each model transfers to land it has not seen. All three degrade sharply under regional distribution shift, predicting only the most common crops while missing rare ones. We further find that fitting these models to a shared input format affects each one differently, which complicates direct architectural comparison. These results expose key limitations of current geospatial foundation models for agriculture and point to region aware evaluation as a necessary standard.
Zhuocheng Shang, Sanmay Das, Ahmed Eldawy
University of California, Riverside · Riverside, USA
Effective foundation modeling in remote sensing requires spatially aligned heterogeneous modalities coupled with semantically grounded supervision, yet such resources remain limited at scale. We present GeoMeld, a large-scale multimodal dataset with approximately 2.5 million spatially aligned samples. The dataset spans diverse modalities and resolutions and is constructed under a unified alignment protocol for modality-aware representation learning. GeoMeld provides semantically grounded language supervision through an agentic captioning framework that synthesizes and verifies annotations from spectral signals, terrain statistics, and structured geographic metadata, encoding measurable cross-modality relationships within textual descriptions. To leverage this dataset, we introduce GeoMeld-FM, a pretraining framework that combines multi-pretext masked autoencoding over aligned modalities, JEPA representation learning, and caption-vision contrastive alignment. This joint objective enables the learned representation space to capture both reliable cross-sensor physical consistency and grounded semantics. Experiments demonstrate consistent gains in downstream transfer and cross-sensor robustness. Together, GeoMeld and GeoMeld-FM establish a scalable reference framework for semantically grounded multi-modal foundation modeling in remote sensing.
Maram Hasan, Md Aminur Hossain, Savitra Roy +6
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay · Space Applications Centre, ISRO · University of Trento +1