Self-supervised pretraining on remote sensing imagery typically treats all samples as equally informative, despite large variability in geographic and visual structure. We propose a curriculum learning strategy for self-supervised Earth observation that ranks samples by geographic isolation, a label-free proxy derived entirely from geolocation metadata already present in geospatial datasets, requiring no image decoding, no model feedback, and no manual annotation. Unlike visual complexity proxies, it scales as O(D log D) with dataset size D and is well-defined for both contrastive and reconstructive objectives. We integrate the proposed measure into MoCoV2 and MAE pretraining and evaluate across three downstream tasks from CopernicusBench (BigEarthNet, DFC-2020, LCZ). Our curriculum reaches baseline final-epoch performance using as few as 20% of the training budget (MAE) and at most 40% (MoCo) of the training budget, and improves final downstream performance by up to +5 mAP on BigEarthNet, with gains of 1-5 points across benchmarks, matching visual-complexity curricula while reducing pre-computation cost by more than 140x (4 s vs. 568 s on SSL4EO). A CKA and effective-rank analysis further reveals that curriculum-trained encoders develop higher-dimensional, more uniformly utilized embedding spaces throughout training.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Given a fixed radius r , samples in densely covered areas have many neighbors and low isolation, whereas samples in sparsely covered areas have few neighbors and high isolation. This is aligned with the principle of spatial correlation.
Figure 2: Geographical Distribution of Samples in the dataset and most geographically isolated points
Figure 3: Downstream linear probing performance along SSL pretraining. Results are reported for MoCoV2 and MAE using the baseline training (BASE), the compression-ratio curriculum (COMP), and the geographic-isolation curriculum (GEO). The bands report the standard deviation.
Figure 4: Downstream performance across training epochs for the baseline MAE (BASE), masking ratio curriculum (CLM), and masking ratio curriculum combined with compression-based (COMP+CLM) and geographic isolation-based (GEO+CLM) sample ordering. Shaded areas denote standard deviations.
Figure 5: Macro F1 on BEN and Macro IoU on DFC across pretraining epochs for MoCo and MAE.
Figure 6: Central Kernel Alignment (CKA) between encoder representations at different pretraining epochs, computed on the BigEarthNet test set.
Figure 7: Effective rank of the encoder representations on the BigEarthNet test set across pretraining epochs under the baseline (BASE), the compression-ratio curriculum (COMP), and the geographic-isolation curriculum (GEO).
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
Model
Epoch (%)
MoCo
MAE
P(left)
P(right)
P(rope)
P(left)
P(right)
P(rope)
BEN
GEO vs BASE
20%
92.99
2.38
4.63
99.96
0.03
0.01
BEN
GEO vs BASE
40%
97.74
1.45
0.82
99.97
0.02
0.01
BEN
GEO vs BASE
60%
99.43
0.39
0.18
100.00
0.00
0.00
BEN
GEO vs BASE
80%
98.87
0.60
0.53
99.89
0.09
0.02
BEN
GEO vs BASE
100%
99.82
0.12
0.06
98.60
0.67
0.74
Appendix
Table 1: Bayesian Test Probability on main metrics with Rope of 0.5
Dataset
Model
Epoch
P(left)
P(right)
P(rope)
BEN
GEO+CLM vs CLM
20%
99.91
0.06
0.02
BEN
GEO+CLM vs CLM
40%
99.87
0.10
0.03
BEN
GEO+CLM vs CLM
60%
99.99
0.01
0.00
BEN
GEO+CLM vs CLM
80%
99.98
0.02
0.01
BEN
GEO+CLM vs CLM
100%
99.61
0.28
0.11
BEN
COMP+CLM vs CLM
20%
100.00
0.00
0.00
Appendix
Table 2: Bayesian Test Probability on main metrics for Curriculum masking ratio (CLM) with Rope of 0.5
Dataset
Model
Epoch (%)
MoCo
MAE
P(left)
P(right)
P(rope)
P(left)
P(right)
P(rope)
BEN
GEO vs BASE
20%
96.00
2.83
1.17
99.33
0.58
0.08
BEN
GEO vs BASE
40%
98.32
1.27
0.40
99.95
0.04
0.01
BEN
GEO vs BASE
60%
93.30
4.85
1.85
99.22
0.66
0.12
BEN
GEO vs BASE
80%
98.04
1.24
0.72
96.10
3.17
0.74
BEN
GEO vs BASE
100%
97.53
1.71
0.76
95.84
2.30
1.86
Appendix
Table 3: Bayesian Test Probability on Macro metrics with Rope of 0.5
MODEL
Dataset
Epoch (%)
MoCo
MAE
BASE
BEN
20%
51.12/49.42/50.37
35.48/35.71/36.31
BASE
BEN
40%
51.96/52.59/51.55
42.09/41.88/42.16
BASE
BEN
60%
52.6/51.85/52.7
39.85/39.84/39.98
BASE
BEN
80%
53.67/52.98/53.85
40.39/40.28/40.54
BASE
BEN
100%
53.88/53.27/53.78
45.42/45.06/45.39
COMP
BEN
20%
52.62/51.82/52.65
45.62/45.9/45.67
Appendix
Table 4: Results over the three seed for MoCo and MAE
Model
Dataset
Epoch (%)
Performance
CLM
BEN
20%
40.67/40.7/40.99
CLM
BEN
40%
40.86/40.94/41.05
CLM
BEN
60%
45.11/45.24/45.31
CLM
BEN
80%
45.26/44.92/45.19
CLM
BEN
100%
45.46/45.33/44.57
COMP+CLM
BEN
20%
46.12/46.11/46.34
Appendix
Table 5: Results for Curriculum Masking (CLM) over three seeds
Model
Dataset
Epoch
MoCo
MAE
BASE
BEN
20%
40.95/37.69/38.12
16.2/17.88/17.09
BASE
BEN
40%
41.31/41.67/40.98
26.08/25.78/25.73
BASE
BEN
60%
44.6/43.14/45.38
23.68/21.57/20.59
BASE
BEN
80%
45.67/43.93/45.7
26.91/22.77/22.78
BASE
BEN
100%
44.92/43.87/45.29
27.53/29.72/28.77
COMP
BEN
20%
43.07/42.81/43.43
30.01/27.76/32.06
Appendix
Table 6: Results for MAE and MoCo on Macro Metrics over three seeds