From Machine Learning to Large-Scale EO Products: Best Practices for Making Maps
Authors: Ghjulia Sialelli, Robin Young, Yuchang Jiang, Cesar Aybar, Linus Scheibenreif, Damien Robert, Clemens Mosig, Adam J. Stewart, +4 more
Organizations: Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, ETH Zurich, Switzerland · ETH AI Center, Zurich, Switzerland · Dept. of Computer Science and Technology, University of Cambridge, UK · Land Change Science, Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, Switzerland · Asterisk Labs, UK · EcoVision Lab, University of Zurich, Switzerland · Inst. for Earth System Science and Remote Sensing, Leipzig University, Germany · Chair of Data Science in Earth Observation, TU Munich, Germany · RISE Research Institutes of Sweden · Climes, Swedish Centre for Impacts of Climate Extremes · Climate AI Nordics
Recent years have seen a rapid expansion in the production of large-scale geospatial maps derived from Earth observation (EO) data, driven largely by advances in machine learning (ML) and large computing infrastructure. Although the barrier to generating such maps has dropped substantially, established best practices have yet to emerge, and design decisions made early in the pipeline can quietly propagate errors into the final product. Producing a technically sound and scientifically credible product remains challenging. Choices made at every stage are tightly coupled: preprocessing decisions shape the training signal, dataset design governs what the model can learn and how reliably its performance can be assessed, and global-scale inference introduces engineering challenges in compute and data access at scale, as well as artifact mitigation. Furthermore, uncertainty quantification and independent map validation each require dedicated methodological attention that is often underestimated. This paper presents a concise, end-to-end account of the recommended practices spanning the pipeline from satellite data to an operational map product. We organize the discussion around six interconnected themes: the EO data infrastructure landscape, data selection and preprocessing, ML dataset construction and model training, uncertainty quantification, map production and distribution, and validation. This paper is a condensed version of a longer guide that provides greater depth across all stages, accessible online at ghjuliasialelli.github.io/ML-EO-Maps/.
Earth Observation (EO) is moving beyond static prediction toward multi-step analytical workflows that require coordinated reasoning over data, tools, and geospatial state. While foundation models and vision-language models have advanced representation learning and language-grounded interaction in remote sensing, and agentic AI has shown strong potential for long-horizon reasoning and tool use, EO is not a straightforward extension of generic agentic AI. EO workflows operate on georeferenced, multi-modal, and temporally structured data, where operations such as reprojection, resampling, compositing, and aggregation transform the underlying state and can constrain later analysis. As a result, errors may propagate silently across steps, and correctness depends not only on internal coherence but also on geospatial consistency, temporally valid comparisons, and physical validity. This position paper argues that these challenges are structural rather than incidental. We examine the assumptions commonly made in generic agentic systems, analyze how they break in geospatial workflows, and characterize failure modes in multi-step EO pipelines. We then outline design principles for EO-native agents centered on structured geospatial state, tool-aware reasoning, verifier-guided execution, and validity-aware learning and evaluation. Building reliable geospatial agents, therefore, requires rethinking agent design around the physical, geospatial, and workflow constraints that govern EO analysis.
Muhammad Akhtar Munir, Muhammad Umer Sheikh, Akashah Shabbir +5
Earth Observation (EO) analysis is inherently interactive: resolving uncertainty often requires expanding the region of interest, retrieving historical observations, and switching across sensors such as optical and Synthetic Aperture Radar. However, most EO benchmarks collapse this process into fixed-input, single-turn tasks. To address this gap, we present EO-Gym, a controlled executable framework for multimodal, tool-using EO agents that formulates EO analysis as a Gymnasium-style local geospatial workspace backed by more than 660k multimodal files indexed by location, time, and sensor type, with 35 EO-specialized tools spanning six task families. Built on this environment, we construct EO-Gym-Data, a benchmark of 9,078 trajectories and 34,604 reasoning steps, and grounded in eight public EO datasets together with Landsat and Sentinel-2 imagery. Evaluating 10 open and closed VLMs shows that strong general-purpose models still struggle with interactive EO reasoning, especially on temporal and cross-modal workflows. As a reference baseline, EO-Gym-4B, obtained by fine-tuning Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct on EO-Gym-Data, improves overall Pass@3 from 0.49 to 0.74 under the main evaluation setting. O-Gym provides a reproducible environment for interactive EO agents, operationalizing EO as an evidence-gathering problem that requires planning across geospatial, temporal, and sensing modality.
Earth observation is moving from foundation models that users must run themselves toward embedding products that package model feature outputs as reusable data without needing to download and process the imagery used to generate them. Earth embeddings are vectors that summarize locations, image patches, or pixels, letting users analyze compact features instead of repeatedly training or running large models on raw satellite imagery. This chapter explains the main types of Earth embeddings, from implicit location encoders to explicit patch and pixel products, and compares their coverage, resolution, dimensionality, storage cost, licenses, and reproducibility. We review their use in land cover and crop mapping, ecological and hazard modeling, socioeconomic prediction, and semantic search, with evidence on when embeddings improve on conventional features and when pooling, fusion, or spatial transfer limit performance. Two case studies show practical workflows for similarity search and land cover mapping. We close with guidance for choosing, evaluating, storing, compressing, and publishing embeddings, and with open problems in oceanic and atmospheric coverage, uncertainty, and benchmarking.