Onboard satellite models often require frequent updates, but the weights adapted to earlier data distributions can quickly become outdated. However, updating large-scale model parameters in orbit presents significant challenges due to the limited uplink bandwidth of Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite systems, particularly for hyperspectral satellite imagery, where high-dimensional spectral-spatial inputs lead to increased model size and update costs. Existing full fine-tuning methods are thus expensive to retrain and difficult to deploy under strict communication constraints. To address this challenge, we propose NE-LoRA, a parameter-efficient adaptation framework for bandwidth-constrained onboard hyperspectral model updates. NE-LoRA combines a primary low-rank branch with a nonlinear auxiliary branch to capture both global update trends and complex spectral-spatial variations. Additionally, we introduce a differentiated training strategy for multi-matrix adapters, motivated by the asymmetric initialization and gradient dynamics of different adapter matrices. Experiments on four hyperspectral datasets and three representative backbone models demonstrate that NE-LoRA consistently outperforms LoRA-based baselines and remains competitive with, and in several cases superior to, full fine-tuning. Across the evaluated settings, NE-LoRA updates only a small fraction of the total parameters on average while preserving low deployment overhead, offering a favorable accuracy-communication trade-off for onboard hyperspectral adaptation.
Figures & tables
Figure 1
Figure 3 : NE-LoRA overview.
Dataset
Method
OA (%)
AA (%)
Kappa ( ×100 )
Total
Train
Upload
SA
NFT
91.98
94.22
91.07
161.7k
0
0
FT
93.22
95.67
92.45
161.7k
161.7k
161.7k
LoRA
93.13
95.71
92.35
189.4k
27.7k
27.7k
LoRA+
93.15
96.12
92.39
189.4k
27.7k
27.7k
VERA
90.55
93.79
89.47
190.0k
0.7k
0.7k
NE-LoRA
94.37 (+1.96)
96.78 (+1.68)
93.74 (+2.19)
217.1k
55.4k
27.7k (5.8 × )
Table 1 : Performance of different methods on CNN3D. Numbers in parentheses indicate the average improvement of NE-LoRA over the compared methods for each column. The numbers in parentheses indicate the improved precision or the reduction in uplink parameters compared to the FT.
Figure 4 : Accuracy vs. Communication.
Model
Method
SA (%)
PU (%)
HR-L (%)
WHU-LK (%)
CNN3D
GELU + λ + γ
94.37
97.42
87.43
90.29
GELU + λ
94.06
96.97
85.97
90.71
λ+γ
93.73
97.01
84.98
89.23
GELU
92.37
96.68
84.16
88.78
M3DDCNN
GELU + λ + γ
94.35
97.06
84.57
91.85
GELU + λ
93.75
96.68
83.06
91.00
Table 2 : Ablation analysis of different methods for each model.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 5 : Hyperspectral dataset overview. Different colors in the upper cells denote various ground object categories within each dataset, where color proportion indicates the relative prevalence of each class.
Figure 6 : Distribution of parameter proportions for maximum-volume modules across different models.
Dataset
Method
OA (%)
AA (%)
Kappa ( ×100 )
Total
Train
Upload
SA
NFT
92.12
94.79
91.24
273.1k
0
0
FT
92.85
95.18
92.04
273.1k
273.1k
273.1k
LoRA
93.33
95.78
92.57
324.7k
51.5k
51.5k
LoRA+
93.75
96.18
93.04
324.7k
51.5k
51.5k
VERA
88.03
86.51
86.63
325.0k
0.4k
0.4k
NE-LoRA
94.35 (+2.33)
96.53 (+2.84)
93.71 (+2.61)
376.2k
103.1k
103.1k (2.6 × )
Appendix
Table 3 : Performance of different methods on M3DDCNN. Numbers in parentheses indicate the average improvement of NE-LoRA over the compared methods for each column.
Dataset
Method
OA (%)
AA (%)
Kappa ( ×100 )
Total
Train
Upload
SA
NFT
85.53
67.33
83.83
452.7k
0
0
FT
92.79
82.92
91.96
452.7k
452.7k
452.7k
LoRA
89.98
74.02
88.82
463.9k
11.2k
11.2k
LoRA+
89.21
73.56
87.96
463.9k
11.2k
11.2k
VERA
86.78
74.45
85.26
476.5k
1.3k
1.3k
NE-LoRA
90.84 (+1.98)
80.12 (+5.66)
89.80 (+2.23)
475.1k
22.4k
11.2k (40.4 × )
Appendix
Table 4 : Performance of different methods on HybridSN. Numbers in parentheses indicate the average improvement of NE-LoRA over the compared methods for each column.
Figure 7 : Accuracy variation of models across datasets with varying rank.
Figure 8 : Accuracy distribution across datasets with fixed λ and variable γ for large matrices.