Paired synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and electro-optical (EO) imagery is increasingly available across sensors, resolutions, and geographic regions. Yet existing SAR-to-EO image translation (SET) methods are typically trained on a single, limited-scale dataset, producing models specialized to particular sensing conditions. We introduce GeoSET, the first generalist model for SET, built around a single pretrained parent that is adapted to downstream datasets under a common protocol. We curate over 3 million high-quality SAR--EO pairs from a collection of more than 10 million SAR observations, spanning diverse sensors, spatial resolutions, and ground sampling distances. To bridge the modality gap between SAR observations and a pretrained image generator, we develop a speckle-robust SAR encoder and pretrain the conditional generator on this heterogeneous corpus. The resulting parent supports efficient adaptation across downstream datasets through low-rank adaptation (LoRA), updating only 0.60% of the generator parameters and requiring approximately one hour per dataset. Across six downstream benchmarks, GeoSET achieves state-of-the-art results in FID and DISTS with full fine-tuning or LoRA, demonstrating effective transfer across heterogeneous SAR-EO domains.
Figures & tables
Figure 2: Cross-dataset comparison of SAR-to-EO image translation methods. We report FID and DISTS on six benchmarks, independently normalized for each dataset–metric pair as 100×best/value .
Figure 3: GeoSET framework. Stage 1 initializes a SAR encoder from a pretrained autoencoder and trains it to reconstruct the original SAR observation from a domain-aware speckle perturbation while the shared decoder remains frozen. Stage 2 replaces the pretrained generator’s text condition with a spatial SAR stream initialized from its image stream and learns a conditional flow from Gaussian noise to the EO latent. Stage 3 adapts the resulting generalist to each downstream benchmark with LoRA or full fine-tuning.
Figure 3
Method
Venue
QXS-SAROPT
SAR2Opt
FID ↓
DISTS ↓
KID ↓
DINO ↑
LPIPS ↓
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
FID ↓
DISTS ↓
KID ↓
DINO ↑
LPIPS ↓
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
General image-to-image translation methods
pix2pix
CVPR’17
174.6
0.373
0.1713
0.275
0.665
0.203
12.33
261.9
0.347
0.2164
0.277
0.657
0.199
13.39
CycleGAN
ICCV’17
115.5
0.362
0.0802
0.283
0.647
0.278
13.25
139.1
0.323
0.0343
0.374
0.642
0.188
12.68
pix2pixHD
CVPR’18
85.7
0.298
0.0492
0.403
0.573
0.358
16.13
146.3
0.283
0.0654
0.475
0.567
0.268
15.95
SPADE
CVPR’19
90.7
0.292
0.0607
0.366
0.599
0.320
14.53
142.5
0.265
0.0518
0.447
0.597
0.234
14.47
Table 2: Quantitative comparison on QXS-SAROPT and SAR2Opt. We retrain (evaluate) all competing methods on the same training (test) splits. Bold and underlined values indicate the best and second-best results, respectively.
Method
SAR2EO
SpaceNet6
FID ↓
DISTS ↓
KID ↓
DINO ↑
LPIPS ↓
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
FID ↓
DISTS ↓
KID ↓
DINO ↑
LPIPS ↓
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
General image-to-image translation methods
pix2pix
169.9
0.315
0.1551
0.400
0.573
0.455
18.06
166.7
0.242
0.1091
0.589
0.419
0.459
17.07
CycleGAN
360.7
0.522
0.3903
0.369
0.683
0.300
15.17
119.3
0.219
0.0436
0.660
0.373
0.478
16.88
pix2pixHD
106.0
0.254
0.0638
0.543
0.439
0.619
21.68
175.1
0.246
0.1136
0.682
0.361
0.525
19.21
SPADE
98.5
0.260
0.0646
0.504
0.501
0.562
19.81
179.7
0.242
0.1228
0.662
0.385
0.489
17.77
Table 3: Quantitative comparison on SAR2EO and SpaceNet6. We retrain (evaluate) all competing methods on the same training (test) splits. Bold is the best, and underlined is the 2nd best.
Figure 5: Qualitative comparison on SAR-to-EO image translation (SET) benchmarks. All methods receive the same SAR observation, and the paired EO image is shown as a reference.
Source
Original SAR
Perturbed SAR
EO
Before
After
Δ
Before
After
Δ
GUSO
27.47
29.18
+1.71
23.54
26.96
+3.42
31.02
TerraMesh
20.11
32.04
+11.93
19.12
30.48
+11.37
33.95
SARLO-80
17.39
19.21
+1.82
16.71
18.49
+1.78
27.81
SAR-1M
29.95
31.25
+1.30
22.01
26.99
+4.98
33.59
3MOS
35.15
36.07
+0.92
27.30
31.92
+4.61
34.62
Table 4: Stage 1 encoder diagnostics and Stage 3 adaptation efficiency. (a) Reconstruction PSNR on original and perturbed SAR inputs before and after encoder training. EO reports reconstruction with the frozen pretrained codec. (b) Computational costs of full fine-tuning and LoRA.
Configuration
SAR2EO
SpaceNet6
FID ↓
DISTS ↓
LPIPS ↓
FID ↓
DISTS ↓
LPIPS ↓
SD2.1 Full FT
67.7
0.270
0.487
124.7
0.196
0.348
FLUX.2 LoRA (Backbone)
71.2
0.275
0.481
117.4
0.201
0.361
+ Pretraining corpus
50.5
0.250
0.470
107.9
0.194
0.351
+ SAR encoder
39.8
0.220
0.448
94.2
0.193
0.347
+ Speckle aug. ( GeoSET )
29.5
0.202
0.440
87.9
0.189
0.338
Table 5: Cumulative component comparison on SAR2EO and SpaceNet6.
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Section
Contents
Section A
Additional results and discussion
Section B
Datasets and evaluation protocols
Section C
Implementation details
Section D
Evaluation metrics
Appendix
Table 6: Overview of the Appendix .
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
Source
True
Shuffled
Null
True
Shuffled
Null
GUSO
13.36
10.24
10.58
0.548
0.678
0.690
SARLO-80
15.88
11.96
11.65
0.514
0.678
0.693
TerraMesh
13.69
10.94
10.80
0.491
0.670
0.695
Appendix
Table 7: SAR conditioning intervention on pretraining sources. True denotes the corresponding SAR observation, shuffled uses a mismatched SAR observation, and null uses an all-zero SAR latent. The null condition is included during training through conditioning dropout.
Method
CAP-BSG
KOMPSAT
FID ↓
DISTS ↓
KID ↓
DINO ↑
LPIPS ↓
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
FID ↓
DISTS ↓
KID ↓
DINO ↑
LPIPS ↓
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
General image-to-image translation methods
pix2pix
245.8
0.402
0.2086
0.254
0.626
0.251
13.77
255.6
0.346
0.2892
0.298
0.669
0.116
10.33
CycleGAN
100.0
0.327
0.0485
0.365
0.569
0.353
16.84
160.8
0.359
0.1105
0.299
0.653
0.139
10.14
pix2pixHD
212.7
0.335
0.1673
0.301
0.570
0.367
17.23
223.2
0.379
0.2004
0.305
0.649
0.128
11.24
SPADE
187.5
0.354
0.1407
0.287
0.593
0.348
16.20
226.3
0.377
0.2106
0.303
0.670
0.157
11.47
Appendix
Table 8: Quantitative comparison on CAP-BSG and KOMPSAT. We retrain (evaluate) all competing methods on the same training (test) splits. Bold is the best, and underlined is the 2nd best.
Source
SAR source
EO source
Spatial scale
Tile size
SAR input
GUSO ( Yan et al., 2026 )
ICEYE, Capella, Umbra
Supplied optical imagery
0.16–0.98 m
5122
1-ch display
TerraMesh ( Blumenstiel et al., 2025 )
Sentinel-1 RTC, VV/VH
Sentinel-2 L2A RGB
10 m grid
2642
2-ch dB
SARLO-80 ( Debuysère et al., 2026 )
Umbra spotlight SLC
Google satellite imagery
0.8 m slant-range grid
10242
1-ch amplitude
SAR-1M ( Liu et al., 2026 )
Multi-source paired subset
Paired optical counterparts
Source-dependent
2562
1-ch display
3MOS mr ( Ye et al., 2025 )
Sentinel-1, ALOS-family
Google Earth
10 / 12.5 m
2562
1-ch display
3MOS hr ( Ye et al., 2025 )
GF-3, RADARSAT-2, RCM
Google Earth
3.5 / 6.3 / 12.5 m
2562
1-ch display
Appendix
Table 9: Pretraining corpus and representations. Five dataset families form six streams, with 3MOS divided into mr (mid-resolution) and hr (high-resolution). Spatial scales denote reported resolutions or sampling intervals. Tile sizes are in pixels; display denotes rendered SAR imagery.
Dataset
SAR source
EO source
GSD
Eval. size
Split protocol
QXS-SAROPT ( Huang et al., 2021 )
GF-3
Google Earth
1 m
2562
C-DiffSET splits ( Do et al., 2026 )
SAR2Opt ( Zhao et al., 2022 )
TerraSAR-X
Google Earth
1 m
6002→5122
Official train/test folders
SAR2EO ( Du et al., 2023 )
Airborne UNICORN SAR
Monochrome WAMI
–
2562
E3Diff split ( Qin et al., 2024 )
SpaceNet6 ( Shermeyer et al., 2020 )
Airborne Capella X-band
WorldView-2
0.5 m
2562
UTM-easting blocks; 450 m guard band
CAP-BSG
Capella X-band GEC
BlackSky
0.9–1.25 m
2562
Location-group split
KOMPSAT
X-band SAR
KOMPSAT-3 RGB
–
2562
Acquisition-group split
Appendix
Table 10: Downstream datasets and evaluation protocols. GSDs refer to the SAR observations where specified; – denotes an unspecified value. SAR2EO uses the fixed first 4,000 samples of the 21,260-pair E3Diff test split. SAR2Opt uses a deterministic center crop.
Figure 6: Qualitative comparison on the QXS-SAROPT dataset. All methods receive identical SAR inputs, with paired EO images shown as references.
Figure 7: Qualitative comparison on the SAR2Opt dataset. All methods receive identical SAR inputs, with paired EO images shown as references.
Figure 8: Qualitative comparison on the SAR2EO dataset. All methods receive identical SAR inputs, with paired EO images shown as references.
Figure 9: Qualitative comparison on the SpaceNet6 dataset. All methods receive identical SAR inputs, with paired EO images shown as references.
Figure 10: SAR and EO reconstruction across pretraining sources. Top: reconstructions of original SAR and EO inputs. Bottom: speckle-perturbed SAR inputs ( L=4 , left) and their reconstructions (right). Values indicate PSNR (dB) relative to the corresponding original observations; parenthesized values refer to perturbed inputs.
Figure 11: Domain-aware speckle augmentation across pretraining sources. From left to right: original SAR inputs and perturbed inputs with L=16 , 8 , and 4 . Smaller L yields stronger perturbations. Values indicate PSNR (dB) relative to the original SAR observations.
Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) imagery provides robust environmental and temporal coverage (e.g., during clouds, seasons, day-night cycles), yet its noise and unique structural patterns pose interpretation challenges, especially for non-experts. SAR-to-EO (Electro-Optical) image translation (SET) has emerged to make SAR images more perceptually interpretable. However, traditional approaches trained from scratch on limited SAR-EO datasets are prone to overfitting. To address these challenges, we introduce Confidence Diffusion for SAR-to-EO Translation, called C-DiffSET, a framework leveraging pretrained Latent Diffusion Model (LDM) extensively trained on natural images, thus enabling effective adaptation to the EO domain. Remarkably, we find that the pretrained VAE encoder aligns SAR and EO images in the same latent space, even with varying noise levels in SAR inputs. To further improve pixel-wise fidelity for SET, we propose a confidence-guided diffusion (C-Diff) loss that mitigates artifacts from temporal discrepancies, such as appearing or disappearing objects, thereby enhancing structural accuracy. C-DiffSET achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) results on multiple datasets, significantly outperforming the very recent image-to-image translation methods and SET methods with large margins.
SAR-to-EO image translation aims to generate electro-optical (EO) imagery from synthetic aperture radar (SAR) observations. Existing latent diffusion approaches typically inherit a predetermined autoencoder, although reconstruction fidelity can vary substantially across codecs and modalities. Because the latent codec affects the round-trip preservation of both SAR conditions and EO targets, codec selection constitutes a fundamental design choice; nevertheless, existing methods largely rely on codecs pretrained on natural images. To remedy this, we introduce ReFlowSET, a conditional latent flow-matching framework that selects its codec through a joint SAR--EO reconstruction audit. Rather than inheriting a heavyweight pretrained generator, ReFlowSET trains a substantially smaller conditional DiT from scratch in the selected latent space, using dual-stream SAR conditioning followed by joint feature refinement. To provide semantic guidance for this from-scratch training, intermediate noisy-EO features are aligned with clean target-EO representations extracted by a frozen vision foundation model. This alignment is used only during training and introduces no additional inference cost. Experiments on QXS-SAROPT and SAR2Opt demonstrate state-of-the-art performance across diverse perceptual fidelity and distributional metrics. Code and pretrained weights are publicly available at https://github.com/KAIST-VICLab/ReFlowSET.
Synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and electro-optical (EO) imagery provide complementary observations: SAR enables day-and-night, weather-resilient sensing, whereas EO provides rich appearance and fine-grained semantic cues. We introduce SAREO-FM, which avoids forcing a single token stream to serve two distinct roles: modality tokens preserve how each sensor observes the scene through masked reconstruction, while learnable semantic queries capture what the scene contains under guidance from a pretrained vision foundation model (VFM). By jointly encoding these queries with SAR and EO tokens, the queries acquire modality-grounded semantic context, while the modality-token outputs remain the explicit targets of masked reconstruction. This design assigns semantic and reconstruction supervision to separate token streams while preserving their interaction within the shared encoder. Pretrained on the million-scale SAR-1M corpus, SAREO-FM achieves strong unimodal transfer for both SAR-only and EO-only inputs, while delivering substantial gains from joint SAR--EO observations on tasks that benefit from complementary sensing.
Jeonghyeok Do, Munchurl Kim
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST)