FairRSFM: A Biome-Aware Benchmark and Debiasing Framework for Remote Sensing Foundation Models
Organizations: Space Applications Centre, ISRO, Ahmedabad, India · Indian Institute of Science Education and Research Bhopal, Bhopal, India · Centre of Studies in Resources Engineering (CSRE), Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, India
Abstract
Remote sensing foundation models (RSFMs) are commonly evaluated using aggregate metrics, which can hide systematic performance disparities across ecological regions. We introduce FairRSFM, a biome-aware benchmark for evaluating ecological group robustness in RSFMs. FairRSFM maps georeferenced samples from 14 terrestrial biome classes into six ecologically meaningful macro-groups and evaluates models under a unified frozen-backbone evaluation protocol. The benchmark covers four downstream datasets: m-EuroSAT, m-BigEarthNet, m-SA-Crop-Type, and MMEarth20K with Dynamic World label maps. Using Prithvi-EO-2.0, SatMAE, and DOFA across three random seeds, we show that aggregate performance consistently masks biome-dependent disparities across architectures and tasks. For example, Prithvi-EO-2.0 reaches 90.98% overall macro-F1 on m-EuroSAT but a mean worst-group score of only 83.72%, while m-SA-Crop-Type drops from 27.30% overall mIoU to 18.47% in the Xeric and Mineralogical group. We further evaluate Biome-Orthogonal Linear Probing (BOLP), Dynamic Biome Reweighting (DBR), and GroupDRO as complementary mitigation baselines. Their effectiveness is model- and task-dependent; for example, BOLP improves Prithvi-EO-2.0 worst-group F1@opt on m-BigEarthNet from 46.12% to 50.27% without updating the RSFM backbone. FairRSFM provides a reusable protocol for diagnosing and mitigating ecological robustness gaps in remote sensing foundation models. Code and datasets are available at: https://github.com/aminurhossain/FairRSFM.
Figures & tables
| Dataset | Task | Classes | Train | Val | Test | Notes |
| m-EuroSAT [ 12 ] | Classification | 10 | 2,000 | 1,000 | 1,000 | Sentinel-2, land cover |
| m-BigEarthNet [ 12 , 25 ] | Multi-label classification | 43 | 20,000 | 1,000 | 1,000 | Sentinel-2, multi-label land cover |
| m-SA-Crop-Type [ 12 ] | Segmentation | 10 | 3,000 | 1,000 | 1,000 | Sentinel-2, crop type |
| MMEarth20K [ 17 , 2 ] | Segmentation | 9 | 16,000 | 2,000 | 2,000 | Dynamic World label maps |
| Configuration | Prithvi-EO-2.0 [ 27 ] | SatMAE [ 3 ] | DOFA [ 33 ] |
| Backbone | Spatio-Temporal ViT (300M) | ViT-Large (304M) | ViT-Base (86M) |
| Embedding Dim | 1024 ( patch) | 1024 ( patch) | 768 ( patch) |
| Input Bands | 6 HLS Bands | 10 Sentinel-2 Bands | 9–12 Wavelength Bands |
| Encoder Status | Frozen (0 updates) | Frozen (0 updates) | Frozen (0 updates) |
| Classification Head | Linear / MLP probe | Linear probe | BatchNorm1d + Linear |
| Segmentation Head | FCN decoder | Conv decoder | Multi-level UPerNet [ 33 ] |
| Dataset | Split | Pheno. | Biomass | Trans. | Cryo. | Hydro. | Xeric | Unk. |
| m-EuroSAT | Train | 1,430 | 50 | 481 | – | – | – | 39 |
| Valid | 741 | 15 | 227 | – | – | – | 17 | |
| Test | 724 | 25 | 239 | – | – | – | 12 | |
| m-BigEarthNet | Train | 11,269 | 356 | 6,291 | – | – | – | 2,084 |
| Valid | 518 | 17 | 335 | – | – | – | 130 | |
| Test | 535 | 14 | 336 | – | – | – | 115 |
| Dataset | Method | Test metric | ECE | NFR | EOdd | DPM | |
| m-EuroSAT | ERM | 90.98 2.36 | 83.72 0.87 | 4.02 1.64 | 5.96 3.28 | 20.50 1.75 | 9.91 0.21 |
| BOLP | 93.42 0.35 | 84.34 0.00 | 2.37 0.04 | 9.82 0.30 | 17.06 0.16 | 9.61 0.03 | |
| DBR | 91.36 1.01 | 84.35 0.50 | 5.50 2.29 | 5.85 0.70 | 21.23 1.39 | 10.90 0.17 | |
| GroupDRO | 94.14 0.47 | 84.34 0.00 | 3.17 0.40 | 10.34 0.51 | 17.31 0.12 | 10.04 0.10 | |
| m-BigEarthNet | ERM | 60.09 0.99 | 46.12 1.51 | 2.12 0.28 | 31.14 1.99 | 42.93 1.90 | 12.66 0.27 |
| BOLP | 62.75 0.16 | 50.27 0.63 | 2.07 0.08 | 20.92 0.39 | 45.93 0.76 | 13.29 0.11 |
| Model | Method | m-EuroSAT (Macro-F1) | m-BigEarthNet (F1@opt) | m-SA-Crop-Type (mIoU) | |||||
| Phenological | High Biomass | Transitional | Phenological | High Biomass | Transitional | Transitional | Xeric | ||
| Prithvi-EO-2.0 | ERM | 88.96 3.38 | 84.56 0.31 | 86.71 3.79 | 59.67 0.48 | 61.14 6.05 | 46.04 1.85 | 28.55 0.19 | 18.47 0.16 |
| BOLP | 92.28 0.53 | 84.34 0.00 | 93.02 0.41 | 61.85 0.72 | 54.03 1.68 | 50.27 0.77 | 27.70 0.67 | 19.38 0.24 | |
| DBR | 88.57 0.96 | 85.00 0.00 | 85.96 2.74 | 55.59 0.18 | 64.53 0.13 | 48.03 0.78 | 26.49 1.93 | 19.81 0.42 | |
| GroupDRO | 92.82 0.70 | 84.34 0.00 | 93.68 0.50 | 49.59 0.67 | 56.78 5.15 | 46.82 0.60 | 28.52 0.11 | 19.09 0.26 | |
| SatMAE | ERM | 93.99 0.14 | 74.45 0.51 | 93.62 0.13 | 52.06 0.22 | 47.97 3.69 | 41.33 0.36 | 27.45 0.48 | 18.07 0.23 |
| Model | Method | Pheno. | Biomass | Trans. | Cryo. | Hydro. | Xeric |
| Prithvi-EO-2.0 | ERM | 44.19 1.39 | 41.20 1.35 | 44.54 1.04 | 43.74 0.56 | 37.28 2.14 | 35.32 2.69 |
| BOLP | 40.57 0.93 | 35.96 2.17 | 41.38 2.26 | 39.71 0.63 | 32.43 3.10 | 32.82 1.91 | |
| DBR | 43.58 1.24 | 40.52 1.05 | 44.03 1.56 | 43.78 1.23 | 38.49 3.13 | 36.87 2.85 | |
| GroupDRO | 42.77 0.33 | 40.27 0.76 | 41.53 0.08 | 43.44 0.56 | 37.16 0.26 | 40.30 0.24 | |
| SatMAE | ERM | 40.89 0.81 | 34.89 0.55 | 35.86 0.35 | 37.42 0.50 | 30.78 0.57 | 34.11 1.08 |
| BOLP | 39.91 1.31 | 33.13 2.08 | 35.29 1.23 | 38.09 0.93 | 30.27 0.14 | 33.76 0.58 |
| ID | Biome macro-group | Included raw biome classes | Rationale |
| 1 | Aseasonal High-Biomass | 1 Tropical Moist Forests; 3 Tropical Conifer Forests; 5 Temperate Conifer Forests | Dense, high-biomass vegetation with relatively persistent canopy structure. |
| 2 | High-Amplitude Phenological | 2 Tropical Dry Forests; 4 Temperate Broadleaf and Mixed Forests; 6 Boreal Forests/Taiga | Forested regions with strong seasonal or phenological variation. |
| 3 | Transitional Herbaceous and Scrub | 7 Tropical and Subtropical Grasslands, Savannas and Shrublands; 8 Temperate Grasslands, Savannas and Shrublands; 12 Mediterranean Forests, Woodlands and Scrub | Open or mixed vegetation regimes with strong grass, shrub, soil, and canopy heterogeneity. |
| 4 | Cryospheric and Short-Cycle | 10 Montane Grasslands and Shrublands; 11 Tundra | Temperature-restricted ecosystems with short growing periods or cryospheric influence. |
| 5 | Xeric and Mineralogical | 13 Deserts and Xeric Shrublands | Vegetation-sparse surfaces dominated by albedo, exposed soil, and mineral background. |
| 6 | Hydrologically Modulated | 9 Flooded Grasslands and Savannas; 14 Mangroves | Water-influenced ecosystems where inundation strongly affects spectral response. |
| Biome Macro-Group | Biome IDs | Quota / Biome | Total (%) |
| 1. Aseasonal High-Biomass | 1, 3, 5 | 1,867 | 5,600 (28.0%) |
| 2. High-Amplitude Phenol. | 2, 4, 6 | 1,700 | 5,100 (25.5%) |
| 3. Transitional Herbaceous | 7, 8, 12 | 1,200 | 3,600 (18.0%) |
| 4. Cryospheric & Short-Cycle | 10, 11 | 1,400 | 2,800 (14.0%) |
| 5. Xeric & Mineralogical | 13 | 1,700 | 1,700 (8.5%) |
| 6. Hydrologically Modulated | 9, 14 | 600 | 1,200 (6.0%) |
| Hyperparams | m-EuroSAT (Macro-F1) | MMEarth20K (mIoU) | |||||
| Overall | Worst | NFR | Overall | Worst | NFR | ||
| 0.2 | 1 | 91.73 0.84 | 83.89 0.62 | 7.18 0.85 | 48.02 0.28 | 33.91 0.51 | 27.84 0.72 |
| 0.4 | 1 | 91.52 0.92 | 84.26 0.48 | 6.13 0.68 | 47.91 0.24 | 34.53 0.46 | 26.68 0.65 |
| 0.5 | 1 | 91.36 1.01 | 84.35 0.50 | 5.85 0.70 | 47.84 0.22 | 34.76 0.42 | 26.42 0.62 |
| 0.6 | 1 | 90.82 1.15 | 83.74 0.64 | 6.48 0.82 | 47.36 0.34 | 34.18 0.48 | 27.02 0.71 |
| 0.8 | 1 | 88.94 1.95 | 82.38 1.62 | 8.64 1.85 | 46.12 0.94 | 33.15 1.12 | 29.48 1.76 |
| Dataset | Rank ( ) | Overall | Worst | NFR |
| m-EuroSAT ( ) | (ERM) | 90.98 2.36 | 83.72 0.87 | 5.96 3.28 |
| 92.47 0.48 | 84.13 0.18 | 8.14 0.42 | ||
| (Canonical) | 93.42 0.35 | 84.34 0.00 | 9.82 0.30 | |
| m-BigEarthNet ( ) | (ERM) | 60.09 0.99 | 46.12 1.51 | 31.14 1.99 |
| 61.24 0.34 | 48.16 0.85 | 24.53 0.61 | ||
| (Canonical) | 62.75 0.16 | 50.27 0.63 | 20.92 0.39 |