cs.LGSep 20, 2026

Transferability and operational reliability of a Prithvi crop classification foundation model under phenological and geographic shift across three continents

Authors: Venkatesh Kolluru, Rajat Shinde, Abdelhak Marouane, Caden Helbling, Deepak Shah, Othneil Drew, Srinivas Kolluru, Iksha Gurung, +2 more

Read PDF
Ask AI
Cite

Copy citation

DOINot available for this paper

Abstract

Fine-tuned geospatial foundation models (GeoFMs) pretrained on large satellite archives have been shown to improve crop classification accuracy and geographic transferability. However, their operational performance beyond the training distribution remains poorly characterized. We evaluated the out-of-distribution performance of a widely adopted GeoFM [Prithvi-EO-2.0] across 37 events in 12 countries on three continents and validated against regional reference products. Results indicated that the mean overall accuracy (OA) declined from 0.65 in the United States to 0.40 in Europe. Beyond accuracy metrics, we assessed five key aspects of model performance: whether model confidence indicates signal failure, sensitivity to observation windows, the effect of coarsening class schemes, and robustness to both band loss and cloud- and shadow-contamination. Accuracy collapsed when the observation window misaligned with local crop phenology, while deterministic confidence remained high. Expected calibration error increased for seven of eight paired events, and 12-51% of each affected scene was confidently mislabeled at near-zero precision. Monte Carlo dropout entropy registered the shift in all eight, indicating that much of the apparent cross-continent decline reflected phenological misalignment rather than spatial transfer. Two adjustments recovered accuracy without retraining. Consolidating 13 classes into 10, based on the model's dominant confusions, raised the mean OA by 8.4 percentage points. Compressing the window toward near-real-time use preserved accuracy across a 45- to 90-day plateau, peaking near 75 days, though arms tighter than 30 days fell about 0.11 below that plateau. Fine-tuned crop GeoFMs therefore transfer usefully only where observation windows match local growing seasons. We translate these findings into operational guidance for the reliable deployment of the released model.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Jun 29, 2026cs.CV

Benchmarking Geospatial Foundation Models for Agriculture Applications

Geospatial foundation models pretrained on satellite imagery promise broad generalization across remote sensing tasks and regions, but their geographic transferability has not been systematically tested, especially in agriculture applications. This paper presents a controlled benchmark that evaluates three models, Prithvi, SpectralGPT, and SatMAE, on multi-temporal crop segmentation and change detection across four U.S. states, Iowa, North Carolina, California, and Minnesota. By assigning each train, validation, and test split to a separate region, we measure how well each model transfers to land it has not seen. All three degrade sharply under regional distribution shift, predicting only the most common crops while missing rare ones. We further find that fitting these models to a shared input format affects each one differently, which complicates direct architectural comparison. These results expose key limitations of current geospatial foundation models for agriculture and point to region aware evaluation as a necessary standard.

Zhuocheng Shang, Sanmay Das, Ahmed Eldawy

University of California, Riverside · Riverside, USA

Remote Sensing Image SegmentationAgricultural Remote SensingGeospatial Foundation ModelsDomain GeneralizationRemote Sensing Change DetectionRemote Sensing Benchmarks
AskPDF
Aug 17, 2026cs.CV

Beyond Accuracy: Assessing Calibration of Geospatial Foundation Models and Their Sensitivity to Distribution Shifts

Geospatial Foundation Models (GeoFMs) are most commonly ranked and selected by accuracy on standard benchmark conditions via averaged ranks. We show that this protocol is too narrow: the promised deployment in critical EO tasks requires further angles of analysis, mainly calibration, the agreement between a model's confidence and its correctness. Across 16 frozen encoders, four classification and five segmentation datasets, and two orthogonal stress axes, every encoder degrades as corruption intensifies, and the ranking changes as well. Across the four classification benchmarks, EO-pretrained and ImageNet-pretrained encoders are indistinguishable on clean accuracy and clean calibration, and EO pretraining provides no more stability under shift than ImageNet pretraining. Under shift the GeoFMs drift further into overconfidence than the ImageNet-pretrained encoders, at every grade and in every corruption family. A centered kernel alignment (CKA) analysis ties this to representational rigidity: EO-pretrained embeddings move less under corruption while losing just as much task information and remaining overconfident. We apply three commonly explored uncertainty quantification methods and find that temperature scaling and deep ensembles cannot counteract the degradation, while a Gaussian-process probe roughly halves ECE under severe cloud only by tripling it on clean data. In selective prediction experiments, we find that confidence-based abstention cannot defer around confidently wrong predictions, and advocate that benchmark rankings and evaluations should therefore operate across a multitude of conditions and metrics to more holistically evaluate model development progress and close the gap to real world deployment scenarios.

Nils Lehmann, Jakob Gawlikowski, Burak Ekim +2

Topic pending
AskPDF
Sep 15, 2026cs.CV

From Foundation Embeddings to Cropland Maps: Label Efficiency, Temporal Transferability and Independent Human Validation

Geospatial foundation models provide reusable representations of satellite imagery that support downstream mapping with limited task-specific modelling. We evaluate whether annual AlphaEarth embeddings support binary cultivated-versus-non-cultivated mapping in Maine, USA, using 192 spatially separated patches and labels derived from the USDA Cropland Data Layer (CDL). Without fine-tuning the foundation model, a lightweight classifier reaches 93.7% overall accuracy and 90.8% balanced accuracy on held-out patches. Logistic regression is within 0.3 percentage points of a gradient-boosted ensemble, while a nearest-class-centroid rule, which uses class centroids but fits no parameters, reaches 90.2%. A balanced sample of 60,000 labelled pixels is within 1.3 percentage points of the full pool of 8.6 million pixels; because pixels are spatially autocorrelated, this result concerns pixel-sample efficiency rather than 60,000 independent annotation sites. In a same-region transfer experiment, classifiers trained in one year remain accurate across 2018 to 2023. Against a blind, two-interpreter consensus at 385 randomly sampled points in one contiguous 2023 block, the AlphaEarth-plus-random-forest map agrees at 95.3% (κ=0.82κ=0.82), compared with 91.7% for the CDL (κ=0.72κ=0.72; exact two-sided McNemar p=0.0161p=0.0161). This local result is consistent with partial smoothing of CDL label noise, but it does not establish statewide correction of the reference product. On the same points, the difference from a fine-tuned TerraMind segmentation model is not statistically significant (95.3% versus 93.5%; p=0.14p=0.14), and the experiment is not a controlled comparison of computational cost. These results support frozen geospatial embeddings as a low-compute candidate for regional cropland mapping, subject to the limits of a single-state study, a 30 m-derived training reference, and a one-block human validation.

Mohammad Ammar Mughees, Giovanni Montefoschi, Zhongxin Chen +1

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy · Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy

Agricultural Remote SensingGeospatial Foundation ModelsGeospatial Representation LearningLand Cover ClassificationTransfer Learning
AskPDF