Foundation models are rarely used as generic, frozen feature extractors; instead, they are fine-tuned for the target downstream application. This practice is particularly prevalent in Earth observation (EO), and it raises a question that downstream accuracy alone cannot answer: does fine-tuning reuse the pretrained representation, or does it relearn a new one? We study this with spectral diagnostics that compare a model before and after adaptation, quantifying how well its dominant singular subspaces are preserved, how broadly the weight update is distributed, and how large it is. Using natural image models such as CLIP and DINO as a reference, we find that, under the evaluated fine-tuning settings, EO models undergo far larger, higher-rank updates and retain much less of their pretrained structure, so their downstream performance is often obtained with substantial changes to the pretrained weight structure. The diagnostics further provide insight into how cheaply a model can be adapted: where the pretrained subspaces are preserved, adapting a small fraction of the parameters can match full fine-tuning, and where they are not, it can fall behind. More broadly, foundation models, and EO foundation models in particular, should be assessed not only by benchmark accuracy, but also by how reusable their pretrained representation is.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Left: One attention output projection W∈Rn×n per panel, pretrained and after full fine-tuning on MADOS (Prithvi-2 block 12, n=768 and CROMA block 7, n=1024 ). Points are 260 sampled columns of W , arrows are the two leading left singular vectors, scaled by their singular values ( U2Σ2 ). Both are projected onto the 3-D subspace that best fits the four arrows. SSI k measures how well the pretrained and fine-tuned top- k subspaces align, independently of singular-value magnitude. Right: DINOv3 exhibits higher SSI than DINOv2 on both datasets, suggesting that stronger pretraining is associated with greater preservation of pretrained subspaces during fine-tuning. Both models exhibit higher ERA on PASTIS than on MADOS, suggesting that adaptation to the more complex task involves a broader range of update directions.
Figure 2
Full-FT spectral diagnostics
mIoU (%) ↑
Dataset
Backbone
SSI32
ERA
ρ
Full
LoRA
SVF
Attn
MLP
Attn
MLP
Attn
MLP
MADOS
CROMA
.545
.695
.466
.542
.452
.462
63.6
63.9
64.4
DOFA
.673
.762
.513
.674
.345
.332
58.5
55.9
58.9
Prithvi-2
.786
.787
.558
.718
.292
.261
50.9
62.1
61.0
TerraMind
.890
.909
.459
.611
.195
.187
65.2
63.9
62.3
Table 2: Full-FT spectral diagnostics and test mIoU on three EO benchmarks. Attn and MLP denote layer groups, and ρ denotes relative weight change. Dataset means average the five backbones; the overall mean weights all 15 model–dataset pairs equally. Bold performance values identify the best adaptation method within each backbone, and dataset mean.
Full-FT spectral diagnostics
mIoU (%) ↑
Dataset
Backbone
SSI32
ERA
ρ
Full
LoRA
SVF
Attn
MLP
Attn
MLP
Attn
MLP
BraDD
CROMA
.287
.357
.672
.743
.914
1.090
54.1
55.8
57.4
DOFA
.637
.715
.609
.737
.422
.427
48.1
47.3
47.7
TerraMind
.449
.457
.721
.838
.638
.645
59.1
58.7
60.3
SSL4EO-MAE
.745
.694
.685
.796
.349
.400
52.3
51.8
53.7
Table 3: Full-FT spectral diagnostics and test mIoU on BraDD. Attn and MLP denote layer groups; ρ is relative weight change. The mean row weights all four backbones equally. Bold marks the best performance per row.
Full-FT spectral diagnostics
Accuracy (%) ↑
Dataset
Backbone
SSI32
ERA
ρ
Full
LoRA
SVF
Attn
MLP
Attn
MLP
Attn
MLP
TimeMatch
CROMA
.116
.074
.589
.628
1.330
1.445
85.6
85.4
73.7
DOFA
.188
.182
.587
.701
.851
.883
86.2
81.5
70.0
Prithvi-2
.327
.175
.597
.707
.654
.726
86.6
84.7
72.5
SSL4EO-MAE
.437
.310
.696
.712
.639
.834
84.3
85.5
73.0
Table 4: Full-FT spectral diagnostics and test accuracy on the canonical single-target TimeMatch experiment, with FR/31TCJ/2017 held out. Attn and MLP denote layer groups; ρ is relative weight change. The mean row weights all seven backbones equally. Bold marks best performance per row.
Full-FT spectral diagnostics
Performance (%) ↑
Dataset
Backbone
SSI32
ERA
ρ
Full
LoRA
SVF
Attn
MLP
Attn
MLP
Attn
MLP
Flowers-102
CLIP
.982
.992
.160
.246
.051
.051
91.2
90.7
93.7
DINOv2
.994
.990
.160
.286
.045
.046
97.0
98.7
98.1
DINOv3
.998
.999
.069
.102
.021
.020
98.1
97.4
94.7
CIFAR-10
CLIP
.976
.984
.237
.337
.065
.061
98.1
97.2
97.6
Table 5: Full-FT spectral diagnostics and downstream accuracy (mIoU for VOC). Attn and MLP denote layer groups; ρ is relative weight change. Spectral means weight datasets and backbones equally. Bold marks the best performance per row.
Figure 3: (a) Depth-resolved SSI32 under full-FT for matched-modality transfer (mean ± 1 std across encoders and benchmarks) and CROMA cross-modal transfer on BraDD. Annotations compare cross-modal and modality-matched mIoU. (b) Full-FT mIoU versus relative weight change ρ on MADOS and PASTIS. Dashed lines are least-squares fits excluding TerraMind. (c) Test mIoU gains over architecture-matched random initialization, in pp, for full-FT, SVF, and LoRA: five EO backbones on MADOS/PASTIS and three CV backbones on VOC, under the evaluated training budgets.
Appendix figures & tables14 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
SSI
ERA
Rel. Change
Downstream Model
Base Model
Res.
Task
Attn
MLP
Attn
MLP
Attn
MLP
Aurora 0.25° Fine-Tuned
Aurora 0.25° Pretrained
0.25°
HRES T0 Forecast
0.992
0.997
0.150
0.141
0.055
0.060
Aurora 0.1° Fine-Tuned
Aurora 0.25° Pretrained
0.1°
High-Res Forecast
0.902
0.953
0.528
0.762
0.218
0.235
Aurora 0.25° Wave
Aurora 0.25° Pretrained
0.25°
Wave Prediction
0.918
0.945
0.563
0.779
0.220
0.277
Aurora 0.4° Air Pollution
Aurora 0.25° 12h Pretrained
0.4°
Air Pollution
0.865
0.917
0.683
0.864
0.319
0.356
Appendix
Table 6: Spectral diagnostics for Aurora (1.3B) across downstream Earth-system tasks.
Figure 4: Sensitivity of SSI to the subspace rank k on (a) CIFAR-10 and (b) VOC. SSI remains largely stable across the evaluated ranks, showing that high subspace preservation is robust to the choice of k for the runs shown. Legends report accuracy and mIoU, respectively.
Figure 5: Sensitivity of SSI to rank k on (a) PASTIS and (b) BraDD. Legends report mIoU. Each curve varies k with trained weights fixed.
Figure 6: Learning-rate sensitivity of DINOv3 under full fine-tuning on (a) Flowers-102 and (b) VOC. Spectral diagnostics use the left axis and test performance the right axis; the dashed line marks the default learning rate. At low learning rates, the encoder changes very little and SSI remains close to one despite suboptimal performance. Performance peaks at 10−4 to 2×10−4 , where SSI 32 remains above 0.99. Larger learning rates degrade performance and broaden the update (higher ERA), but relative weight change stays small ( ρ≤0.15 ) and SSI 32 stays above 0.93. Overall, subspace preservation is stable across the sweep, unlike for the EO encoders (Fig. 7 ).
Figure 7: Learning rate sensitivity of (a) AnySat and (b) Presto under full fine-tuning on TimeMatch. Spectral diagnostics use the left axis and test accuracy the right axis; the dashed line marks the default learning rate used in Tab. 4 . Unlike DINOv3 (Fig. 6 ), neither encoder reaches its best accuracy while preserving its dominant subspaces. AnySat peaks at the default with SSI 32 of 0.24; lower learning rates raise SSI at a cost in accuracy, and learning rates of 3×10−4 and above diverge (24.3%, below the plotted range). Presto improves monotonically with the learning rate while SSI decreases and ρ increases, so its best accuracy coincides with the lowest SSI in the sweep. Overall, the EO diagnostics are far less stable across learning rates than their CV counterparts.
Figure 8: Extended full fine-tuning of DINOv3 on Flowers-102 and PASCAL VOC, using 10× more optimization steps and twice the default initial learning rate. Curves show validation accuracy or mIoU as fractions, alongside SSI, ERA, and relative weight change ρ , aggregated over the analyzed encoder matrices. The dashed line marks epoch 10 within each extended run. SSI remains high and relative weight change remains small, while ERA increases more noticeably on VOC but still stays relatively low.
Figure 9: Decoder comparison across PASTIS, BraDD, MADOS, and FLAIR-2. Blue bars show the mean absolute change in SSI32 ; red bars show the mean mIoU difference between UPerNet and the linear decoder.
Figure 10: Difference in test mIoU between SVF and full fine-tuning across encoders. Diamonds indicate means over datasets. MMEarth exhibits the largest mean performance deficit.
Figure 11: Depth profile of subspace preservation under full fine-tuning, per benchmark. Grey lines are individual encoders; red is the mean with ±1 std.
Encoder
Pretraining objective
Modality
min(m,n)
CROMA
cross-modal contrastive + MAE
optical, SAR
1024
DOFA
wavelength-conditioned
multi-sensor
768
Prithvi-2
masked autoencoding, multitemporal
optical
768
TerraMind
multimodal generative
multi-sensor
768
SSL4EO-MAE
masked autoencoding
optical, SAR
384
Appendix
Table 7: Main EO encoders, their pretraining objectives, and input modalities. Matrix dimensions are summarized by the median min(m,n) across analyzed attention and MLP weight matrices.
Benchmark
Modality
Input
Bands
T
Classes
Train / Val / Test
MADOS
optical S2
2402
11
1
15
1,433 / 642 / 728
PASTIS
optical S2
1282
10
6
20
folds 1-3 / 4 / 5
FLAIR-2
aerial RGB
5122
0 3
1
13
4,049 / 1,022 / 3,022
BraDD
SAR S1
482
0 2
6
0 2
official split
TimeMatch
optical pixel-set
16 px
10
30
0 9
cross-region
Appendix
Table 8: Benchmarks. T is the number of time steps after subsampling. FLAIR-2 is at 20 cm ground sampling distance, the rest at 10 m.
Encoder
Backbone
Input
Bands (opt./SAR)
Tapped blocks
Main EO encoders
CROMA
ViT-L
120
12 / 2
3, 5, 7, 11
DOFA
ViT-B
224
any †
3, 5, 7, 11
Prithvi-2
ViT-B
224
0 6 / –
3, 5, 7, 11
TerraMind
ViT-B
224
12 / 2
3, 5, 7, 11
SSL4EO-MAE
ViT-S/16
224
13 / 2
3, 5, 7, 11
Appendix
Table 9: Encoder configurations. Bands is the number of input channels expected (optical / SAR encoder). Natural-image backbones use their standard classification or segmentation head. † DOFA is wavelength-conditioned and accepts the dataset’s bands.
Encoder
Encoder params
Adapted matrices
SVF trainable
LoRA trainable
CROMA
303.0 M
96
98.3 K (0.03%)
3.15 M (1.04%)
DOFA
111.3 M
50
37.1 K (0.03%)
1.21 M (1.09%)
Prithvi-2
0 86.2 M
48
36.9 K (0.04%)
1.18 M (1.37%)
TerraMind
0 87.3 M
61
46.8 K (0.05%)
1.28 M (1.47%)
SSL4EO-MAE
0 22.6 M
48
18.4 K (0.08%)
0.59 M (2.60%)
Appendix
Table 10: Trainable parameters, excluding the decoder. Percentages are relative to the encoder.
Setting
Learning rate
Applies to
Default
10−4
everything not listed below
Full fine-tuning
2×10−5
CIFAR-10 (all backbones), VOC (CLIP, DINOv2)
LoRA
5×10−4
VOC (DINOv3)
SVF
5×10−3
VOC (DINOv3 and CLIP), Flowers-102 (CLIP)
Appendix
Table 11: Learning rates for the natural-image experiments. Appendix B.3 examines this sensitivity.
Fine-tuning foundation models for Earth Observation is computationally expensive, with high training time and memory demands for both training and deployment. Parameter-efficient methods reduce training cost but retain full inference complexity, while post-hoc compression optimizes inference only after costly full fine-tuning. We introduce SIMPLER, a pre-fine-tuning architecture selection method that reduces inference and deployment costs by identifying an effective model depth before adaptation. SIMPLER exploits stabilization of representations in deeper layers of pre-trained vision transformers: it computes layer-wise representation similarity on unlabeled task data and applies an automated scoring function to select redundant layers, with no gradients, magnitude heuristics, or hyperparameter tuning required. On Prithvi-EO-2, SIMPLER prunes up to 79% of parameters while retaining 94% of baseline performance, yielding a 2.1x training speedup and 2.6x inference speedup. The method generalizes to TerraMind (a multimodal EO foundation model) and ImageNet-pretrained ViT-MAE, demonstrating applicability across tasks, architectures, and spectral modalities. Code is available at https://gitlab.citius.gal/hpc4rs/simpler.
Víctor Barreiro, Johannes Jakubik, Francisco Argüello +1
Centro Singular de Investigación en Tecnoloxías Intelixentes (CiTIUS), Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Spain · Departmento de Electrónica e Computación, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Spain · IBM Research Europe, Zurich, Switzerland
Foundation models (FMs) have transformed machine learning from isolated task-specific model development toward general-purpose models pretrained on broad data and adapted to multiple downstream tasks. Earth observation (EO) is an important domain for this paradigm because satellite and airborne archives are large, high-revisit, and increasingly multimodal, while reliable field labels are often sparse. Remote sensing foundation models (RSFMs) cannot be transferred reliably/optimally without domain-specific adaptation. This is because EO data are governed by measurement physics and operational decision constraints. This chapter reviews the design principles arising from these domain-specific constraints. It first defines the FMs paradigm in remote sensing (RS), then synthesizes the current model landscape, pretraining objectives, architecture designs, downstream adaptation and trustworthiness requirements. The chapter also incorporates recent benchmark evidence showing that no single geospatial foundation model is universally best and that inconsistent evaluation remains a major issue to fair comparison and reliable deployment. In addition, two brief environmental monitoring case studies; physics-informed spectral targeted masking for harmful algal bloom prediction and reinforcement learning for adaptive environmental monitoring station selection to illustrate the FMs domain-guided principles in practice. This chapter posits that next-generation RSFMs should be evaluated not only by benchmark accuracy, but also by modality-aware transfer and physically plausible representations for trustworthy EO decisions.
Syed Usama Imtiaz, Mitra Nasr Azadani, Nasrin Alamdari
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Florida State University
Geospatial foundation models (GeoFMs), pretrained on large-scale geospatial data such as Earth observation (EO), climate, and weather data, have shown promising performance when fine-tuned on diverse downstream tasks. However, there are two challenges of adapting EO-pretrained GeoFMs to practical downstream datasets. The first challenge is how to handle spectral mismatch: pretrained patch embeddings expect a fixed set of input bands, whereas downstream sensors may provide different channels. The second challenge is how to reduce fine-tuning cost and make it efficient. While existing work has made efforts on these challenges individually, jointly improving fine-tuning performance under spectral mismatch while reducing adaptation cost remains underexplored. We propose SPECTRA, a parameter-efficient fine-tuning framework that addresses both spectral mismatch and adaptation cost. To handle spectral mismatch, SPECTRA introduces Band-Routed Embedding (BRE), which maps all available downstream bands into the band space expected by the pretrained GeoFM. By using BRE, all available bands in the downstream dataset are utilized to improve the selected-band input without changing the pretrained patch embedding interface. To reduce adaptation cost, SPECTRA further introduces a Stage-wise Transferability-aware LoRA (ST-LoRA) fine-tuning. ST-LoRA estimates stage-wise transferability before fine-tuning and assigns stage-specific LoRA ranks, concentrating trainable parameters on the stages with high transferability for the target task. Across three EO-pretrained GeoFMs and four downstream segmentation datasets, experiments show that BRE improves performance by utilizing all spectral bands, while ST-LoRA reduces trainable parameters compared with full fine-tuning and standard LoRA. Code is available at https://github.com/big-data-lab-umbc/SPECTRA.
Xingyan Li, Jordan A. Caraballo-Vega, Jie Gong +2
University of Maryland, Baltimore County Baltimore, Maryland, USA · NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, Maryland, USA