MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404520640 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2024.3493763

Generating Physically-Consistent Satellite Imagery for Climate Visualizations

2024· article· en· W4404520640 on OpenAlexaff
Björn Lütjens, Brandon Leshchinskiy, Océane Boulais, Farrukh Chishtie, Natalia Díaz-Rodríguez, Margaux Masson-Forsythe, Ana Mata-Payerro, Christian Requena‐Mesa, Aruna Sankaranarayanan, Aaron Piña, Yarin Gal, Chedy Raïssi, Alexander Lavin, Dava Newman

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMIT Portugal
KeywordsRemote sensingSatellite imagerySatelliteComputer scienceVisualizationData visualizationClimatologyEnvironmental scienceGeologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deep generative vision models are now able to synthesize realistic-looking satellite imagery. However, the possibility of hallucinations prevents their adoption of risk-sensitive applications, such as generating materials for communicating climate change. To demonstrate this issue, we train a generative adversarial network (GAN, pix2pixHD) to create synthetic satellite imagery of future flooding and reforestation events. We find that a pure deep learning-based model can generate photorealistic flood visualizations but hallucinate floods at locations that are not susceptible to flooding. To address this issue, we propose to condition and evaluate generative vision models on segmentation maps of physics-based flood models. We show that our physics-conditioned model outperforms the pure deep learning-based model and a handcrafted baseline. We evaluate the generalization capability of our method to different remote sensing data and different climate-related events (reforestation). We publish our code and dataset which includes the data for a third case study of melting Arctic sea ice and >30 000 labeled HD image triplets—or the equivalent of 5.5 million images at <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">$128 \times 128$ </tex-math></inline-formula> pixels—for segmentation guided image-to-image (im2im) translation in Earth observation. Code and data are available at github.com/blutjens/eie-earth-public.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.676

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote SensingSame topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207