Scientific data often describe entities whose features are jointly governed by the laws of physics, yet existing self-supervised learning (SSL) objectives largely ignore this physical coherence. We introduce imposter, a discriminative pretext task that replaces subsets of an entity's features with real observations donated by another entity and trains the encoder to identify the swapped features. Because every donated value is individually plausible, the task can only be solved by learning cross-feature physical dependencies. We evaluate the proposed objectives on global ERA5-Land reanalysis data using 21 environmental variables and assess the learned representations on seven downstream tasks spanning climate classification, carbon flux estimation, and streamflow prediction. Our study includes, to our knowledge, the first systematic comparison of self-supervised objectives for land-surface modeling under a shared architecture and pre-training budget. We find that the most effective pretext task depends on the downstream task family rather than any single objective's superiority, and that imposter provides complementary information when combined with existing SSL objectives. These results suggest that physical coherence is a valuable new source of self-supervision for scientific foundation models.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the imposter pretext task. Given two entities representing temperate forest and desert ecosystems, the algorithm performs feature-level swap to detect incoherent features during the training stage.
Linear Probe
CAMELS
Carbon Flux
Summary
Repr. Quality
Method
LP-30 ↑
LP-5 ↑
SF R2↑
Basin RMSE ↓
GPP R2↑
RECO R2↑
NEE R2↑
Mean Rank ↓
RankMe ↑
α ReQ ↓
Contrastive
0.859* ± 0.003
0.927 ± 0.001
0.370 ± 0.005
0.600 ± 0.009
0.416 ± 0.031
0.300 ± 0.056
0.135 ± 0.036
4.00
75.8 † ± 0.49
1.925 ± 0.058
NTP
0.657 ± 0.003
0.840 ± 0.002
0.352 ± 0.004
0.720 ± 0.014
0.489 † ± 0.026
0.447 ± 0.032
0.216 † ± 0.011
4.00
51.5 ± 4.18
2.238 ± 0.078
Feat-MAE
0.720 ± 0.004
0.877 ± 0.001
0.378 † ± 0.003
0.681 † ± 0.006
0.499 ± 0.027
0.418 ± 0.029
0.211 ± 0.022
2.79
70.9 ± 1.60
1.913 ± 0.074
Temp-MAE
0.657 ± 0.042
0.850 ± 0.017
0.381 ± 0.004
0.687 ± 0.009
0.472 ± 0.037
0.418 ± 0.041
0.195 ± 0.028
4.21
54.3 ± 3.35
2.179 ± 0.087
FT-MAE
0.633 ± 0.003
0.837 ± 0.003
0.384 ± 0.003
0.704 ± 0.014
0.472 ± 0.015
0.338 ± 0.016
0.203 ± 0.005
4.86
59.3 ± 0.29
2.044 ± 0.005
Table 1: Downstream evaluation of individual objectives. Linear probe accuracy reported for 5-class and 30-class Köppen classification. Streamflow (SF), basin attributes, and carbon flux (GPP, RECO, NEE) scores are median R2 /RMSE across basins/sites. RankMe and α ReQ measure representation quality. All results reported as mean ± std over 3 seeds. Bold scores represent the best score in the column, whereas † shows the second best in the column. ∗ indicates the best score achieved across all objectives and experiments throughout this work.
Linear Probe
CAMELS
Carbon Flux
Method
LP-30 ↑
LP-5 ↑
SF R2↑
Basin RMSE ↓
GPP R2↑
RECO R2↑
NEE R2↑
Imp. + Contrastive
-1.5%
+0.1%*
+10.8%*
-13.5%
+8.9%
+8.3%
+50.4%
Multi-Imp. + Contrastive
-1.7%
+0.1%
+8.4%
-18.5%
+5.3%
+14.7%
+54.8%
Imp. + NTP
+12.3%
+5.4%
+7.7%
-14.0%
+0.6%
-9.2%
+4.6%
Multi-Imp. + NTP
+14.5%
+6.5%
+4.3%
-20.3%
+0.2%
+0.7%*
+10.2%*
Imp. + Feat-MAE
+4.7%
+2.1%
+4.5%
-14.5%
-0.2%
-3.6%
+2.8%
Table 2: Percentage improvement of concatenated representations over the base method. Green indicates improvement, red indicates degradation. ∗ indicates the best score achieved across all objectives and experiments throughout this work.
Linear Probe
CAMELS
Carbon Flux
Method
LP-30 ↑
LP-5 ↑
SF R2↑
Basin RMSE ↓
GPP R2↑
RECO R2↑
NEE R2↑
Imp. + Contrastive
-1.9%
-0.5%
+1.9%
+1.5%
+5.3%
+3.0%
+27.4%
Multi-Imp. + Contrastive
-0.9%
-0.1%
-2.4%
+1.8%*
+9.9%
-5.0%
+9.6%
Imp. + NTP
+22.4%
+8.9%
+3.7%
+6.8%
+3.5%
-17.0%
-0.5%
Multi-Imp. + NTP
+23.1%
+9.4%
+4.5%
+4.2%
-1.6%
-10.7%
-19.9%
Imp. + Feat-MAE
+9.2%
+3.4%
-1.1%
-9.8%
+4.0%*
-5.3%
+11.8%
Table 3: Percentage improvement of joint objectives over the base method. Green indicates improvement, red indicates degradation. ∗ indicates the best score achieved across all objectives and experiments throughout this work.
Imposter
Multi-Imposter
Sched.
r
LP-30 ↑
LP-5 ↑
SF ↑
Basin ↓
GPP ↑
RECO ↑
NEE ↑
Rank ↓
LP-30 ↑
LP-5 ↑
SF ↑
Basin ↓
GPP ↑
RECO ↑
NEE ↑
Rank ↓
Const.
0.25
0.725
0.873
0.316
0.646
0.435
0.374
0.171
73
0.724
0.875
0.357
0.645
0.449
0.419
0.212
49
0.50
0.767
0.902
0.353
0.654
0.446
0.441
0.226
36
0.761
0.891
0.343
0.642
0.448
0.433
0.217
41
0.75
0.735
0.874
0.332
0.676
0.443
0.394
0.163
66
0.778
0.905
0.314
0.696
0.434
0.391
0.191
62
1.00
0.651
0.837
0.373
0.878
0.472
0.505
0.248
45
0.651
0.837
0.373
0.878
0.472
0.505
0.248
49
Linear
0.25
0.568
0.816
0.312
0.712
0.433
0.468
0.188
83
0.486
0.768
0.279
0.787
0.436
0.422
0.175
89
Table 4: Swap schedule and ratio ablation (500K pre-training samples, T=30 , patch size 2, 3 seeds per configuration). Total rank sums the per-configuration ranks across all seven metrics within each panel; lower is better. Bold marks the best value per column within a panel.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Linear Probe
CAMELS
Carbon Flux
Method
LP-30 ↑
LP-5 ↑
SF R2↑
Basin RMSE ↓
GPP R2↑
RECO R2↑
NEE R2↑
Imp. + Contrastive
0.846 ± 0.003
0.928* ± 0.001
0.410* ± 0.008
0.681 ± 0.010
0.453 ± 0.045
0.325 ± 0.024
0.203 ± 0.035
Multi-Imp. + Contrastive
0.844 ± 0.003
0.928 ± 0.001
0.401 ± 0.007
0.711 ± 0.013
0.438 ± 0.008
0.344 ± 0.026
0.209 ± 0.015
Imp. + NTP
0.738 ± 0.005
0.885 ± 0.002
0.379 ± 0.006
0.821 ± 0.029
0.492 ± 0.018
0.406 ± 0.035
0.226 ± 0.023
Multi-Imp. + NTP
0.752 ± 0.002
0.895 ± 0.002
0.367 ± 0.006
0.866 ± 0.018
0.490 ± 0.017
0.450* ± 0.014
0.238* ± 0.004
Imp. + Feat-MAE
0.754 ± 0.002
0.895 ± 0.001
0.395 ± 0.002
0.780 ± 0.037
0.498 ± 0.014
0.403 ± 0.027
0.217 ± 0.008
Appendix
Table 5: Evaluation of the concatenated representations. Underlined values indicate an improvement over the corresponding base method, and bold values represent the best performance in each column. ∗ indicates the best score achieved across all objectives and experiments throughout this work.
Linear Probe
CAMELS
Carbon Flux
Method
LP-30 ↑
LP-5 ↑
SF R2↑
Basin RMSE ↓
GPP R2↑
RECO R2↑
NEE R2↑
Imp. + Contrastive
0.843 ± 0.003
0.922 ± 0.001
0.377 ± 0.007
0.591 ± 0.004
0.438 ± 0.009
0.309 ± 0.014
0.172 ± 0.026
Multi-Imp. + Contrastive
0.851 ± 0.002
0.926 ± 0.001
0.361 ± 0.010
0.589* ± 0.009
0.457 ± 0.013
0.285 ± 0.032
0.148 ± 0.047
Imp. + NTP
0.804 ± 0.016
0.915 ± 0.009
0.365 ± 0.005
0.671 ± 0.002
0.506 ± 0.010
0.371 ± 0.004
0.215 ± 0.021
Multi-Imp. + NTP
0.809 ± 0.004
0.919 ± 0.001
0.368 ± 0.009
0.690 ± 0.003
0.481 ± 0.006
0.399 ± 0.006
0.173 ± 0.004
Imp. + Feat-MAE
0.786 ± 0.008
0.907 ± 0.006
0.374 ± 0.012
0.748 ± 0.012
0.519* ± 0.026
0.396 ± 0.017
0.236 ± 0.012
Appendix
Table 6: Evaluation of joint objectives. Underlined values indicate an improvement over the corresponding base method, and bold values represent the best performance in each column. ∗ indicates the best score achieved across all objectives and experiments throughout this work.
Parameter
Value
Backbone
Patch transformer
Embedding dimension d
128
Transformer blocks
4
Attention heads
8
MLP ratio
4
Projection dimension
64
Appendix
Table 7: Shared architecture and optimization hyperparameters.
Group
Variable
Temperature
2m air temperature
2m dewpoint temperature
Soil temperature (level 1)
Soil temperature (level 4)
Radiation
Surface net solar radiation
Surface net thermal radiation
Appendix
Table 8: ERA5-Land variables used for pre-training, grouped by physical process.
Decoder Only
Encoder+Decoder
Method
FLOPs
Overhead
FLOPs
Overhead
Imp.
87,296
1.00 ×
23,872,256
1.00 ×
NTP
87,296
1.00 ×
23,872,256
1.00 ×
Feat-MAE
701,952
8.04 ×
24,486,912
1.03 ×
Temp-MAE
701,952
8.04 ×
24,486,912
1.03 ×
FT-MAE
701,952
8.04 ×
24,486,912
1.03 ×
Appendix
Table 9: Task-specific computational overhead (FLOPs) for the head/decoder components vs. Full-Model End-to-End FLOPs (including the shared encoder, 23,784,960 FLOPs). Overhead metrics are reported relative to imposter.
Machine learning approaches to spatiotemporal physical systems have primarily focused on next-frame prediction, with the goal of learning an accurate emulator for the system's evolution in time. However, these emulators are computationally expensive to train and are subject to performance pitfalls, such as compounding errors during autoregressive rollout. In this work, we take a different perspective and look at scientific tasks further downstream of predicting the next frame, such as estimation of a system's governing physical parameters. Accuracy on these tasks offers a uniquely quantifiable glimpse into the physical relevance of the representations of these models. We evaluate the effectiveness of general-purpose self-supervised methods in learning physics-grounded representations that are useful for downstream scientific tasks. Surprisingly, we find that not all methods designed for physical modeling outperform generic self-supervised learning methods on these tasks, and methods that learn in the latent space (e.g., joint embedding predictive architectures, or JEPAs) outperform those optimizing pixel-level prediction objectives. Code is available at https://github.com/helenqu/physical-representation-learning.
Helen Qu, Rudy Morel, Michael McCabe +4
Flatiron Institute · Princeton University · Université Paris-Saclay, Université Paris Cité, CEA, CNRS, AIM +1
Self-supervised learning (SSL) is designed to learn generic, transferable representations rather than representations optimized for a single task. Most geospatial benchmarks evaluate representations solely through downstream tasks, providing limited insight into the information encoded within the representation itself. We ask a different question: do SSL representations of satellite imagery preserve statistical associations with environmental variables that co-vary with the imaging process? To answer this question, we probe SSL representations using co-located ERA5 reanalysis variables, a global dataset of physically consistent environmental variables, including temperature, precipitation, surface solar radiation, surface pressure, and volumetric soil water. These variables are physically related to the spectral reflectance and radar backscatter recorded by Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2, making them meaningful evaluation targets despite not being used during SSL pretraining. We complement this probing analysis with intrinsic representation metrics to characterize representation geometry and investigate how these properties relate to downstream performance and the encoding of environmental signals. Using DINO, MAE, and MoCo models trained under identical conditions, we show that representation-level metrics distinguish models with similar downstream benchmark performance, providing complementary information beyond task-driven benchmarks. We further find that the linear accessibility of environmental signals is associated with performance on environmentally dependent tasks in the PANGAEA benchmark. Finally, we release ERA5 annotations co-located with the SSL4EO dataset to enable physically grounded representation evaluation for future geospatial foundation models.
Existing self-supervised learning (SSL) methods primarily learn object-invariant representations but often neglect the spatial structure and relationships among object parts. To address this limitation, we introduce Spatial Prediction (SP), a spatially aware pretext regression task that predicts the relative position and scale between a pair of disentangled local views from the same image. By modeling part-to-part relationships in a continuous geometric space, SP encourages representations to capture fine-grained spatial dependencies beyond invariant categorical semantics, thereby learning the compositional structure of visual scenes. SP is implemented as a decoupled plug-in and can be seamlessly integrated into diverse SSL frameworks. Extensive experiments show consistent improvements across image recognition, fine-grained classification, semantic segmentation, and depth estimation, as well as substantial gains in out-of-distribution robustness for object recognition. To evaluate spatial reasoning, we introduce (1) a position and scale prediction task on image patch pairs and (2) a jigsaw understanding task requiring patch reordering and recognition after reconstruction. Strong performance on these tasks indicates improved spatial structure and geometric awareness. Overall, explicitly modeling spatial information provides an effective inductive bias for SSL, leading to more structured representations and better generalization. Code and models will be released.
Yang Shen, Yusen Cai, Weronika Hryniewska-Guzik +2
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore · Warsaw University of Technology, Poland