pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.20291 · v1 · pith:ELPQUTDJnew · submitted 2026-06-18 · 💻 cs.LG · cs.CV

Integrating national forest inventory, airborne lidar, and satellite imagery for wall-to-wall mapping of forest structure with computer vision

Luke J. Zachmann , David D. Diaz , Vincent A. Landau , Chelsey Walden-Schreiner , Tony Chang , Nathan E. Rutenbeck , Katharyn A. Duffy , Kiarie Ndegwa
show 3 more authors
Andreas Gros Scott Conway Guy Bayes
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 17:54 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG cs.CV
keywords forest structure mappingsatellite imageryairborne lidarnational forest inventorycomputer visionwall-to-wall mappingbiomass estimationcanopy height
0
0 comments X

The pith

A satellite model trained on lidar samples from inventory plots maps US forest attributes at 10m resolution across sparse to dense conditions.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces the VibrantForests framework that combines national forest inventory data, airborne lidar, and satellite imagery through computer vision to produce wall-to-wall maps of forest structure. The model generates simultaneous estimates of canopy cover, canopy height, aboveground biomass, basal area, and quadratic mean diameter at 10-meter resolution over the contiguous United States. It targets the practical need for consistent, annually updated data to support forest management and wildfire risk planning, where mismatched data sources often create operational problems. The central demonstration is that this training approach extends the usable range of forest conditions beyond typical saturation points and reduces the overestimation of sparse stands and underestimation of dense stands that affect many passive-sensor models.

Core claim

The VibrantForests framework applies a satellite-based model trained on lidar-derived samples from national forest inventory plots to generate concurrent wall-to-wall estimates of canopy cover, canopy height, aboveground live tree biomass, basal area, and quadratic mean diameter at 10-meter resolution across the contiguous United States. This produces predictive capability spanning the full spectrum of forest conditions from sparse-canopy low-biomass to dense-canopy high-biomass, extending the saturation range of comparable passive-sensor models and reducing regression-to-mean behavior that overestimates attributes in small or sparse conditions and underestimates them in large or dense condi

What carries the argument

The VibrantForests satellite-based forest structure model trained on lidar-derived samples from national forest inventory plots and applied via computer vision to map multiple attributes concurrently.

If this is right

  • Produces annually updated, coherent 10m maps usable as a single foundation for forest and wildfire planning systems.
  • Reduces confounding behavior in operational planning that arises from combining data sources of different vintages and accuracies.
  • Delivers management-relevant attributes across the full observed range of forest conditions rather than saturating early.
  • Supports wall-to-wall coverage at national scale while maintaining resolution fine enough for local decisions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same lidar-plus-satellite training pattern could be replicated in countries that maintain comparable national forest inventory programs to generate equivalent maps.
  • The 10m outputs might allow wildfire risk models to incorporate finer-scale canopy and biomass variation than products at 30m or coarser resolution.
  • Annual cadence updates could enable direct tracking of changes from fire, harvest, or growth without needing separate change-detection layers.

Load-bearing premise

Lidar-derived samples from national forest inventory plots are accurate and representative enough to train a model that generalizes across all contiguous US forest conditions without systematic bias.

What would settle it

Independent field measurements collected in forest conditions or regions underrepresented in the national forest inventory plots that show consistent over- or under-prediction relative to the model's 10m outputs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.20291 by Andreas Gros, Chelsey Walden-Schreiner, David D. Diaz, Guy Bayes, Katharyn A. Duffy, Kiarie Ndegwa, Luke J. Zachmann, Nathan E. Rutenbeck, Scott Conway, Tony Chang, Vincent A. Landau.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Data flow through the VibrantForests framework. Inputs, including lidar, FIA, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The geographic extent of lidar-derived training data generated across CONUS. Lidar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Spatial partitioning of 2,500m × 2,500m tiles into training (blue), validation (purple), and test (orange) sets based on 15km x 15km parent grid cells. Partitioning at the parent-cell scale mitigates data leakage between sets due to spatial autocorrelation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of three distinct “conditions” delineated across the four-subplot layout of an FIA plot. Adapted from FIA documents by [17]. The footprint of the four subplots and associated macroplots combine to be considered the footprint of an FIA plot. The subplot-specific footprint is relied upon in this study as the spatial scale for inventory data extraction and creation of allometric models. 7 [PITH_… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The distribution of Pacific Northwest field plots used for validation. Points in blue were collected by Washington DNR (n=2,487), points in red by US Forest Service (n=1,223), and points in orange by BLM (n=1,379). Plot sizes and sampling protocols varied among agencies, as did the dates of field data collection. In general, BLM and USFS conducted regional field campaigns to correspond with the collection … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Lidar-derived targets and satellite-based predictions for several 2560m [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Allometric model performance on the FIA subplot test partition (n=43,470). Scatter plots [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Satellite model performance on lidar-derived test tiles, shown as two-dimensional histograms [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Plot-level evaluation of lidar-derived training tiles against independent Pacific Northwest [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Overall performance of satellite forest structure model on independent field observations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Geographic distribution of allometric model bias on FIA test-partition subplots evaluated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of satellite based AGB predictions (2024) with hexagon-level FIA observations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Hexagon-level (64,000 ha) comparisons between satellite-based (2024) predictions and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Remote sensing is increasingly relied upon to deliver actionable science for forest and wildfire risk management across large landscapes. Wall-to-wall, annually updated maps are a persistent need for effective forest management. Many planning systems and data collections combine disparate data sources with different purposes, vintages, and prediction quality, which leads to confounding behavior in operational planning systems. We introduce the VibrantForests framework, developed and applied to map forest attributes and provide a coherent foundation for effective forest and wildfire planning. VibrantForests includes a satellite-based forest structure model trained on lidar-derived samples and applied across the contiguous United States to concurrently generate estimates of canopy cover, canopy height, aboveground live tree biomass, basal area, and quadratic mean diameter at 10-meter resolution. We demonstrate predictive capability spanning the full spectrum of forest conditions ranging from sparse-canopy/low-biomass to dense-canopy/high-biomass. Results show that our model extends the range at which saturation is commonly encountered in comparable passive-sensor models, and reduces regression-to-mean behavior that commonly produces overestimation of forest attributes in small/sparse conditions and underestimation in large/dense conditions. The VibrantForests framework addresses a key limitation in large-area forest and wildfire planning by delivering coherent wall-to-wall estimates of management-relevant attributes at annual cadence and 10m resolution.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the VibrantForests framework for mapping forest attributes (canopy cover, canopy height, aboveground live tree biomass, basal area, and quadratic mean diameter) at 10-meter resolution across the contiguous United States using a satellite-based model trained on lidar-derived samples from national forest inventory plots. It claims to demonstrate predictive capability across the full spectrum of forest conditions from sparse to dense, extending the saturation range and reducing regression-to-mean behavior compared to other passive-sensor models.

Significance. If substantiated, this work would provide coherent, wall-to-wall, annually updated estimates for forest and wildfire management, addressing confounding from disparate data sources. The training on external lidar data is a positive for avoiding circularity, and the focus on reducing common biases in forest attribute estimation is relevant for operational planning.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The abstract asserts good performance across sparse-to-dense conditions and reduced saturation/regression-to-mean effects, but supplies no quantitative metrics, validation statistics, error bars, or details on training/validation splits. This makes it impossible to assess support for the central claim that the model extends the saturation range and reduces regression-to-mean behavior.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their review and constructive feedback. We address the major comment on the abstract below and will make the requested revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The abstract asserts good performance across sparse-to-dense conditions and reduced saturation/regression-to-mean effects, but supplies no quantitative metrics, validation statistics, error bars, or details on training/validation splits. This makes it impossible to assess support for the central claim that the model extends the saturation range and reduces regression-to-mean behavior.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from including quantitative support for the central claims. The full manuscript reports detailed validation statistics (including R², RMSE, and bias metrics stratified by forest condition, plus training/validation split details) in the Results and Methods sections. To make the abstract more self-contained, we will revise it to incorporate key quantitative metrics demonstrating performance across sparse-to-dense conditions, the extended saturation range relative to other passive-sensor models, and reduced regression-to-mean effects. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper trains a satellite-based model on lidar-derived labels from external national forest inventory plots and applies it to generate wall-to-wall maps. No equation or claim reduces by construction to its own inputs; the reported improvements in saturation range and regression-to-mean behavior are presented as empirical outcomes of training and validation rather than definitional or fitted-by-construction results. No self-citation chain is invoked as the sole justification for a uniqueness theorem or ansatz. The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available; no details on free parameters, axioms, or invented entities can be extracted.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5819 in / 1157 out tokens · 26215 ms · 2026-06-26T17:54:01.015235+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Anderson, Maxwell B

    Christopher B. Anderson, Maxwell B. Joseph, Camile Söthe, Flávia de Souza Mendes, Thomas Maschler, Ryan C. McCarthy, Joseph Mascaro, Tara O’Shea, Amy Rosenthal, and David C. Marvin. Forest Carbon Diligence: Digital MRV for mapping forest structure and carbon stocks.Forest Ecology and Management, 612:123709, July 2026. ISSN 0378-1127. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2026.123709 2026

  2. [2]

    Vo, John Brandt, JustineSpore, SayantanMajumdar, DanielHaziza, JanakiVamaraju, TheoMoutakanni, Piotr Bojanowski, Tracy Johns, Brian White, Tobias Tiecke, and Camille Couprie

    Jamie Tolan, Hung-I Yang, Benjamin Nosarzewski, Guillaume Couairon, Huy V. Vo, John Brandt, JustineSpore, SayantanMajumdar, DanielHaziza, JanakiVamaraju, TheoMoutakanni, Piotr Bojanowski, Tracy Johns, Brian White, Tobias Tiecke, and Camille Couprie. Very high resolution canopy height maps from RGB imagery using self-supervised vision transformer and convo...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.rse.2023.113888 2024

  3. [3]

    The overlooked contribution of trees outside forests to tree cover and woody biomass across Europe.Science Advances, 9(37):eadh4097, September 2023

    Siyu Liu, Martin Brandt, Thomas Nord-Larsen, Jerome Chave, Florian Reiner, Nico Lang, Xiaoye Tong, Philippe Ciais, Christian Igel, Adrian Pascual, Juan Guerra-Hernandez, Sizhuo Li, Maurice Mugabowindekwe, Sassan Saatchi, Yuemin Yue, Zhengchao Chen, and Rasmus Fensholt. The overlooked contribution of trees outside forests to tree cover and woody biomass ac...

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.adh4097 2023

  4. [4]

    Above-Ground Biomass (AGB) Stock and Change Product

    Chloris Geospatial. Above-Ground Biomass (AGB) Stock and Change Product. Data Specifi- cations, Chloris Geospatial, Boston, MA, 2026. URLhttps://static1.squarespace.com/ static/65ae8dc337ea664cbf34181c/t/6981db51c8bb6f5126514640/1770117969479/Data+ specifications_Chloris+Geospatial_2026.pdf

    2026

  5. [5]

    A collaborative, cloud-based decision support system for structured wildfire risk mitigation planning.Ecological Modelling, 514:111464, April 2026

    Hugh Safford, Colton Miller, Danielle Perrot, Sophie Gilbert, Tyler Hoecker, Michael Koontz, Kailey Kornhauser, Matt Thompson, Joe Shannon, Nathan Rutenbeck, Joe Scott, Scott Conway, and Katharyn Duffy. A collaborative, cloud-based decision support system for structured wildfire risk mitigation planning.Ecological Modelling, 514:111464, April 2026. ISSN 0...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2025.111464 2026

  6. [6]

    Matthew G. Rollins. LANDFIRE: a nationally consistent vegetation, wildland fire, and fuel assessment.International Journal of Wildland Fire, 18(3):235–249, May 2009. ISSN 1049-8001, 1448-5516. doi: 10.1071/WF08088. URL https://connectsci.au/wf/article/18/3/235/ 23183/LANDFIRE-a-nationally-consistent-vegetation

    work page doi:10.1071/wf08088 2009

  7. [7]

    Inga P. La Puma. LANDFIRE Technical Documentation. Open-File Report 2023-1045, U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, 2023. URLhttps://doi.org/10 .3133/ofr20231045

    2023

  8. [8]

    Riley, Isaac C

    Karin L. Riley, Isaac C. Grenfell, Mark A. Finney, and Jason M. Wiener. TreeMap, a tree- level model of conterminous US forests circa 2014 produced by imputation of FIA plot data. Scientific Data, 8(1):11, January 2021. ISSN 2052-4463. doi: 10.1038/s41597-020-00782-x. URLhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-00782-x. Number: 1. 24

    work page doi:10.1038/s41597-020-00782-x 2014

  9. [9]

    Crookston and Gary E

    Nicholas L. Crookston and Gary E. Dixon. The Forest Vegetation Simulator: A review of its structure, content, and applications.Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 49(1):60–80,

  10. [10]

    URL https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearc h/28474

    doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2005.02.003. URL https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearc h/28474

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compag.2005.02.003 2005

  11. [11]

    Remote Sensing of Environment280, 113195 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2022.113195

    Michael A. Wulder, David P. Roy, Volker C. Radeloff, Thomas R. Loveland, Martha C. Anderson, David M. Johnson, Sean Healey, Zhe Zhu, Theodore A. Scambos, Nima Pahlevan, Matthew Hansen, Noel Gorelick, Christopher J. Crawford, Jeffrey G. Masek, Txomin Hermosilla, Joanne C. White, Alan S. Belward, Crystal Schaaf, Curtis E. Woodcock, Justin L. Huntington, Leo...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.rse.2022.113195 2022

  12. [12]

    Patterson, Wenlu Qi, and Carlos Silva

    Ralph Dubayah, James Bryan Blair, Scott Goetz, Lola Fatoyinbo, Matthew Hansen, Sean Healey, Michelle Hofton, George Hurtt, James Kellner, Scott Luthcke, John Armston, Hao Tang, Laura Duncanson, Steven Hancock, Patrick Jantz, Suzanne Marselis, Paul L. Patterson, Wenlu Qi, and Carlos Silva. The Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation: High-resolution laser ...

  13. [13]

    doi: 10.1016/j.srs.2020.100002

    ISSN 2666-0172. doi: 10.1016/j.srs.2020.100002. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.co m/science/article/pii/S2666017220300018

    work page doi:10.1016/j.srs.2020.100002 2020

  14. [14]

    Kennedy, Janet Ohmann, Matt Gregory, Heather Roberts, Zhiqiang Yang, David M

    Robert E. Kennedy, Janet Ohmann, Matt Gregory, Heather Roberts, Zhiqiang Yang, David M. Bell, Van Kane, M. Joseph Hughes, Warren B. Cohen, Scott Powell, Neeti Neeti, Tara Larrue, Sam Hooper, Jonathan Kane, David L. Miller, James Perkins, Justin Braaten, and Rupert Seidl. An empirical, integrated forest biomass monitoring system.Environmental Research Lett...

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa9d9e 2018

  15. [15]

    Kellner, John Armston, Ralph Dubayah, David M

    Laura Duncanson, James R. Kellner, John Armston, Ralph Dubayah, David M. Minor, Steven Hancock, Sean P. Healey, Paul L. Patterson, Svetlana Saarela, Suzanne Marselis, Carlos E. Silva, Jamis Bruening, Scott J. Goetz, Hao Tang, Michelle Hofton, Bryan Blair, Scott Luthcke, Lola Fatoyinbo, Katharine Abernethy, Alfonso Alonso, Hans-Erik Andersen, Paul Aplin, T...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.rse.2021.112845 2022

  16. [16]

    Landau, Luke J

    Tony Chang, Kiarie Ndegwa, Andreas Gros, Vincent A. Landau, Luke J. Zachmann, Bogdan State, Mitchell A. Gritts, Colton W. Miller, Nathan E. Rutenbeck, Scott Conway, and Guy Bayes. VibrantVS: A High-Resolution Vision Transformer for Forest Canopy Height Estimation. Remote Sensing, 17(6):1017, January 2025. ISSN 2072-4292. doi: 10.3390/rs17061017. URL https...

    work page doi:10.3390/rs17061017 2025

  17. [17]

    Confronting the Wildfire Crisis: Initial Landscape Investments to Protect Communities and Improve Resilience in America’s Forests

    USFS. Confronting the Wildfire Crisis: Initial Landscape Investments to Protect Communities and Improve Resilience in America’s Forests. Technical Report FS-1187d, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, April 2022. URLhttps://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/fi les/fs_media/fs_document/WCS-Initial-Landscapes.pdf

    2022

  18. [18]

    Gray, Thomas J

    Andrew N. Gray, Thomas J. Brandeis, John D. Shaw, William H. McWilliams, and Patrick Miles. Forest Inventory and Analysis Database of the United States of America (FIA).In: Dengler, J.; Oldeland, J.; Jansen, F.; Chytry, M.; Ewald, J., Finckh, M.; Glockler, F.; Lopez- Gonzalez, G.; Peet, R. K.; Schaminee, J .H. J., eds. Vegetation databases for the 21st ce...

    work page doi:10.7809/b-e.00079 2012

  19. [19]

    David Daniel Diaz.Leveraging Open Data to Support Forest Mapping, Modeling, and Policy Analysis in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, February 2024. URLhttp://hdl.handle.net/1773/51176

    2024

  20. [20]

    USGS 3DEP LiDAR Point Clouds, 2026

    USGS. USGS 3DEP LiDAR Point Clouds, 2026. URLhttps://registry.opendata.aws/us gs-lidar/

    2026

  21. [21]

    PDAL: An open source library for the processing and analysis of point clouds.Computers & Geosciences, 148:104680, March 2021

    Howard Butler, Bradley Chambers, Preston Hartzell, and Craig Glennie. PDAL: An open source library for the processing and analysis of point clouds.Computers & Geosciences, 148:104680, March 2021. ISSN 00983004. doi: 10.1016/j.cageo.2020.104680. URL https: //linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0098300420306518

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2020.104680 2021

  22. [22]

    Howard Butler, Andrew Bell, Michael P. Gerlek, chambbj, Pete Gadomski, Connor Manning, Mateusz Łoskot, Bas Couwenberg, Norman Barker, Paul Ramsey, Even Rouault, Julia Dark, Kyle Mann, Guilhem Villemin, Nicolas Chaulet, Claire Foster, Michael Rosen, Ogi Moore, Scott Lewis, Grigory, Kirk McKelvey, Martin Dobias, Isaac Bell, Michael D. Smith, Bram, xantares,...

  23. [23]

    URLhttps://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.2616780

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.2616780

  24. [24]

    and Del Bello, U

    M. Drusch, U. Del Bello, S. Carlier, O. Colin, V. Fernandez, F. Gascon, B. Hoersch, C. Isola, P. Laberinti, P. Martimort, A. Meygret, F. Spoto, O. Sy, F. Marchese, and P. Bargellini. Sentinel-2: ESA’s Optical High-Resolution Mission for GMES Operational Services.Remote Sensing of Environment, 120:25–36, May 2012. ISSN 0034-4257. doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2011.11...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.rse.2011.11.026 2012

  25. [25]

    Earth Search STAC API, April 2026

    Element84. Earth Search STAC API, April 2026. URLhttps://github.com/Element84/ear th-search. original-date: 2023-05-09T02:21:20Z. 26

    2026

  26. [26]

    Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python.The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12(null):2825–2830, November 2011

    Fabian Pedregosa, Gaël Varoquaux, Alexandre Gramfort, Vincent Michel, Bertrand Thirion, Olivier Grisel, Mathieu Blondel, Peter Prettenhofer, Ron Weiss, Vincent Dubourg, Jake Vanderplas, Alexandre Passos, David Cournapeau, Matthieu Brucher, Matthieu Perrot, and Édouard Duchesnay. Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python.The Journal of Machine Learning Rese...

    work page doi:10.5555/1953048.2078195 2011

  27. [27]

    Level III and IV Ecoregions of the Continental United States, November 2015

    US EPA. Level III and IV Ecoregions of the Continental United States, November 2015. URL https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/level-iii-and-iv-ecoregions-continental-uni ted-states

    2015

  28. [28]

    Feature pyramid networks for object detection,

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Piotr Dollar, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, Bharath Hariharan, and Serge Belongie. Feature Pyramid Networks for Object Detection. In2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 936–944, Honolulu, HI, July 2017. IEEE. ISBN 978-1-5386-0457-1. doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2017.106. URL http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/docu ment/8099589/

    work page doi:10.1109/cvpr.2017.106 2017

  29. [29]

    Masked Autoencoders Are Scalable Vision Learners

    Kaiming He, Xinlei Chen, Saining Xie, Yanghao Li, Piotr Dollar, and Ross Girshick. Masked Autoencoders Are Scalable Vision Learners. In2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 15979–15988, New Orleans, LA, USA, June

  30. [30]

    InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    IEEE. ISBN 978-1-6654-6946-3. doi: 10.1109/CVPR52688.2022.01553. URL https: //ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9879206/

    work page doi:10.1109/cvpr52688.2022.01553 2022

  31. [31]

    PyTorchLightning/pytorch-lightning: 0.7.6 release, May 2020

    William Falcon, Jirka Borovec, Adrian Wälchli, Nic Eggert, Justus Schock, Jeremy Jordan, Nicki Skafte, Ir1dXD, Vadim Bereznyuk, Ethan Harris, Tullie Murrell, Peter Yu, Sebastian Præsius, Travis Addair, Jacob Zhong, Dmitry Lipin, So Uchida, Shreyas Bapat, Hendrik Schröter, Boris Dayma, Alexey Karnachev, Akshay Kulkarni, Shunta Komatsu, Martin.B, Jean-Bapti...

    arXiv 2020

  32. [32]

    Decoupled Weight Decay Regularization

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Decoupled Weight Decay Regularization. InICLR 2019, September 2018. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=Bkg6RiCqY7

    2019

  33. [33]

    Gray, Anne C.S

    Andrew N. Gray, Anne C.S. McIntosh, Steven L. Garman, and Michael A. Shettles. Predicting canopy cover of diverse forest types from individual tree measurements.Forest Ecology and Management, 501:119682, December 2021. ISSN 03781127. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119682. URLhttps://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0378112721007726

    work page doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119682 2021

  34. [34]

    James Menlove and Sean P. Healey. A comprehensive forest biomass dataset for the USA allows customized validation of remotely sensed biomass estimates.Remote Sensing, 12:4141, 2020. doi: 10.3390/rs12244141. URLhttps://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/63383. 27

    work page doi:10.3390/rs12244141 2020