Predicting Viticulture Potential through an Ensemble of U-Net and a Geospatial Foundation Model

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.

Accurate predictions of smallholder maize yields across national boundaries are critical for food security planning in sub-Saharan Africa, yet most published benchmarks report within-country performance that overstates true generalisability. This paper evaluates whether geospatial foundation model embeddings, specifically Prithvi-EO-1.0-100M and ViT-Base, outperform traditional Sentinel-2 spectral features under a Leave-One-Country-Out cross-validation scheme on 6,404 maize field observations from five African countries. The results show a clear generalisability gap: within-country random cross-validation yields moderate R^2 values, but all feature sets perform poorly under cross-country testing, with universally negative R^2. Frozen Prithvi-EO embeddings provide no meaningful advantage over engineered spectral features for cross-country prediction in this setting. The paper argues that the main limitation is a shift in yield distribution between countries rather than representation quality and releases a reproducible negative benchmark for future work.

Vision-language models (VLMs) show promise for agricultural classification, but zero-shot performance on disease, pest, damage, quality, and species identification remains poor, and it is unclear whether this reflects weak visual features or a failure to connect them to domain knowledge. We build a benchmark of 116 datasets, 834 classes, and 8,324 images spanning these tasks to isolate where the gap arises. Linear probing shows VLM vision encoders already encode agricultural features nearly as separable as a self-supervised DINOv3 baseline, ruling out weak visual representations as the primary bottleneck. Conditioning each model on an oracle reference description (an upper bound on its parametric knowledge) closes most of the gap left by an unaided lower bound, showing VLMs already know more about agriculture than they show. To close this gap without an oracle description at inference time, we structure test-time reasoning around a fixed, per-task diagnostic rubric: the model generates $K$ candidate responses and a Probabilistic Pivot Tournament (PPT) verifier, scored pairwise against the rubric, selects the best one. This nearly doubles judged F1 over the lower bound and matches or exceeds the upper bound on several tasks, notably pushing Gemma 4 E4B-it's disease F1 to 0.71, above its own upper bound of 0.60. However, the verifier's letter-scale confidence score has the opposite of its intended effect: filtering to its most confident predictions does not improve accuracy and correlates negatively with correctness across every model and pool size tested, so the score cannot serve as a measure of predictive uncertainty, and most of the observed gain likely comes from rubric-grounded generation rather than pairwise verification.