---
title: "Mughees et al. evaluate AlphaEarth embeddings for cropland mapping in Maine, USA; 93.7% overall accuracy on held-out patches"
sdDatePublished: "2026-09-16T04:09:00Z"
source: "https://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.17138"
topics:
  - name: "scientific research"
    identifier: "medtop:20000735"
  - name: "scientific innovation"
    identifier: "medtop:20000736"
  - name: "agricultural technology"
    identifier: "medtop:20000759"
  - name: "arable farming"
    identifier: "medtop:20000212"
  - name: "information technology and computer science"
    identifier: "medtop:20000763"
locations:
  - "Maine"
---


Mughees et al. evaluate AlphaEarth embeddings for cropland mapping in Maine, USA; 93.7% overall accuracy on held-out patches

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

From Foundation Embeddings to Cropland Maps:
Label Efficiency, Temporal Transferability and
Independent Human Validation
Mohammad Ammar Mughees1, Giovanni Montefoschi1, Zhongxin Chen2, and Maria Antonia
Brovelli1
1Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy
2Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy
Abstract. Geospatial foundation models provide reusable representations of satellite imagery that can 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 image patches
and labels derived from the USDA Cropland Data Layer (CDL). Without fine-tuning the foundation model, a
lightweight classifier reaches approximately 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 labelled class centroids but no iterative parameter fitting, reaches 90.2%. A balanced sample of
60,000 labelled pixels is within approximately 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 temporal-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 = 0.82), compared with 91.7% for the CDL
(κ = 0.72; exact two-sided McNemar p = 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 = 0.14),
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.
Keywords: geospatial foundation models; AlphaEarth embeddings; cropland classification; Cropland Data Layer;
label efficiency; random forest; photo-interpretation validation
1
Introduction
Producing land-use and land-cover information used to
be slow and expensive. It relied on the manual inter-
pretation of imagery and on task-specific models that
had to be built almost from scratch for every new prob-
lem, and the biggest obstacle was data: training such
models needed very large, carefully labelled datasets,
and high-quality labels are scarce because they are
costly to collect [7]. Satellite missions such as Sentinel
and Landsat have been both an asset and a challenge
in this respect. They provide a continuous stream of
observations from which a dataset can be built, but
the volume of that data is too large to use directly,
so a geospatial expert has to spend considerable effort
cleaning, compositing and engineering features before
the data becomes usable [11]. Compositing, the usual
way of dealing with clouds, also discards part of the
temporal phenological signal that matters most for
crops.
Geospatial foundation models have begun to change
this picture. Instead of engineering features by hand,
these models learn the features themselves, mostly
through self-supervised pre-training, and a single pre-
trained model can then serve several downstream tasks.
They divide into two broad ways of working. One route
provides a pre-trained backbone that the user still has
to fine-tune for each task, as with Prithvi [13] or Ter-
raMind [14]. The other route runs the model once, at
the developer’s side, and releases its output directly as
embeddings: fixed-length per-pixel vectors that behave,
in geospatial terms, like bands. AlphaEarth [7] and
TESSERA [11] follow this second route, releasing 64-
dimensional and 128-dimensional annual embeddings
respectively. For every 10 m × 10 m pixel the user ob-
tains one such vector, which compactly summarises a
whole year of multimodal observations at that location,
and which can be fed straight into a light classifier with
no heavy model to train or run.
This paper is concerned with that second family, and
specifically with what it delivers for cropland mapping.
Four related terms are used here in a specific sense. A
crop is a cultivated plant grown for food, fibre or fodder.
Cropland is land used to grow such crops, comprising
arable land together with land under permanent crops
[12]. Cultivated land is the broader category of land
worked for agriculture; in the USDA Cropland Data
Layer it is represented by a dedicated Cultivated Layer,
1
arXiv:2609.17138v1 [cs.CV] 15 Sep 2026

defined operationally as land cropped in at least two
of the previous five years [4]. Non-cultivated land is ev-
erything outside that category, including forest, water,
developed, barren and similar non-agricultural cover.
The task addressed here is the binary separation of
cultivated from non-cultivated land, and, as explained
in Section 2, we derive our own binary mask from the
annual 254-class Cropland layer rather than using the
ready-made Cultivated Layer.
The premise that precomputed embeddings plus a
simple classifier are sufficient has so far been tested
mostly by the model authors themselves. TESSERA
reports that its embeddings, with only a handful of
labels, match or outperform task-specific models across
five very different tasks and without any fine-tuning
[11]. Independent evaluations are still few. The clearest
we found applies the same AlphaEarth and TESSERA
embeddings to riverine habitat and geomorphic classes
with ordinary supervised classifiers, and reports a
high potential for the approach [3].
Closer to our
own task, a recent study evaluates AlphaEarth em-
beddings for irrigated-cropland mapping in China and
the United States, training random forests directly
on the 64-dimensional vectors, and reports overall ac-
curacies around 95 per cent with stable transfer be-
tween years but weaker generalisation across regions
[29]. Independent evidence has accumulated quickly
since. Zvonkov et al. [31] map cropland in Togo from
precomputed Presto and AlphaEarth embeddings with
a light random forest, reporting overall accuracies of
0.897 and 0.859 respectively against a national test
set. AlphaEarth is the weaker of their two embeddings
there, level with the GLAD product (0.859) and below
WorldCover (0.880), though the two embeddings are
not evaluated on equal terms: their Presto embeddings
span the 2019 to 2020 season of the reference labels,
whereas the earliest AlphaEarth year available to them
was 2021. Ma et al. [19] benchmark AlphaEarth em-
beddings across three agricultural downstream tasks in
the United States, crop-yield prediction, tillage map-
ping and cover-crop mapping, and find them compet-
itive with purpose-built remote-sensing models when
trained on local data, while reporting limited spatial
transferability, low interpretability and limited time
sensitivity. Lisaius et al. [18] apply the same paradigm
to crop-type classification under smallholder conditions
in the groundnut basin of Senegal. Two further stud-
ies examine the embedding space itself rather than
a mapping task: Benavides-Martínez et al. [2] char-
acterise the functional roles of individual dimensions,
and Rahman et al. [26] the geometry of the embedding
manifold over the conterminous United States. We
return to both in Section 4. The agricultural literature
otherwise remains dominated by the fine-tuning and
dedicated-training route: AgriFM is pre-trained on
more than 25 million multi-source samples and out-
performs general-purpose foundation models on crop
mapping and field-boundary delineation [17], while
fine-tuning studies find that large models pull ahead
of traditional machine learning mainly when labels are
scarce [5]. Both of those routes still have to train or
fine-tune a heavy model and attach a task head, which
is precisely the cost the embedding paradigm avoids. A
broader benchmark of eight satellite foundation models
is a useful warning in this context: it finds performance
strongly task-dependent, the quality of the pre-training
data more important than its sheer size, and the step
from a ViT-Base to a ViT-Large backbone worth less
than one per cent of accuracy [27]. A larger model is
not necessarily a better one, which is part of why a
simple classifier on a good embedding merits serious
consideration.
The gap we address is therefore not whether embed-
dings can map cropland at all, which Zvonkov et al.
[31] have now demonstrated, but how far such a map
can be trusted. The existing evaluations are reported
as accuracy against a single reference product, on one
region and one year, and none of them examines the
structure of the embedding space that produces the
result, tests whether a model fitted in one year still
holds in another, or asks whether the reference product
itself is right where the map and the reference disagree.
Whether a lightweight classifier on these embeddings is
competitive for binary cultivated mapping, how much
labelled data it needs, which properties of the embed-
ding space decide the outcome, and how the resulting
map compares with independent human judgement
rather than with the labels it was trained on, have not
been examined together for a single task.
In this paper we address that question over the state
of Maine, in the United States, using the annual Al-
phaEarth embeddings as the only input and labels
derived from the USDA Cropland Data Layer. We
report four things. First, a statistical characterisation
of the embedding space itself, on the unit hypersphere
where the vectors lie, which establishes which analy-
ses are legitimate and gives a classifier-free read on
how hard the task is (Section 4).
Second, the ac-
curacy of a graded set of light classifiers placed on
the frozen embeddings, from a single linear model to
gradient-boosted ensembles (Section 5). Third, how
much labelled data the approach actually needs, and
how well a single-year model transfers across the years
2018 to 2023 (Sections 6 and 7).
Fourth, a valida-
tion that steps outside the reference layer altogether,
comparing the model, the Cropland Data Layer and
a fine-tuned segmentation model against independent
human photo-interpretation on a common set of ref-
erence points (Section 8). Throughout, we keep the
classifier deliberately simple, so that the embedding,
and not the model placed on top of it, is the object of
study.
Summarising, before entering into the details of our
work, we want to emphasise the boundaries we are
considering. “Label efficiency” refers to the number of
CDL-labelled pixels used by the downstream classifier,
not to the number of independent fields or manually
annotated sites. “Transferability” refers to temporal
reuse across years within the same Maine sampling
frame; geographic transfer to other regions is not tested.
The human-reference comparison is point-based and
local to one contiguous block in 2023.
2

2
Data and Study Area
2.1
Maine as a study area
The experimental work is carried out over the state
of Maine, in the north-eastern United States. Two
practical constraints fixed this choice. The first is the
ground truth: our labels are taken from the USDA
Cropland Data Layer, which is produced only for the
United States, so the study area had to lie within it.
The second is the availability of the embeddings. Al-
phaEarth provides annual embeddings globally, but we
also wanted an area covered