← all papers Β· overview

How Much of a Model Do We Need? Redundancy and Slimmability in Remote Sensing Foundation Models

Abstract

Large-scale foundation models (FMs) in remote sensing (RS) (denoted as RS FMs) are developed following paradigms established in computer vision (CV), yet the validity of transferring CV scaling laws to RS has not been systematically examined. We hypothesize that RS FMs enter an overparameterized regime at substantially smaller scales than their CV counterparts, with task-relevant information encoded redundantly across model dimensions. To test this hypothesis, we apply post-hoc slimmability, uniform width reduction of pretrained encoder transformer blocks, as a tool to measure representational redundancy across eight state-of-the-art RS FMs on classification, segmentation, and change detection tasks. RS FMs retain 69% to 109% relative accuracy on RS datasets under aggressive width reduction, while masked autoencoder (MAE) and DINOv2 pretrained on natural images (denoted as CV MAE and CV DINOv2) degrade sharply on ImageNet subsets of matched class count over the same range of computational requirements. A CV MAE evaluated directly on the same RS datasets narrows but does not close the gap, indicating that both dataset characteristics and domain-specific pretraining contribute to the differences between the models. Mechanistic analyses such as feature correlation, explained variance, and effective dimensionality indicate that task-relevant variance concentrates in few principal components and is redundantly encoded across model dimensions. We further show that learned slimmable training improves over post-hoc slimmability for contrastive objectives, while reconstruction-based objectives do not benefit from current slimmable training protocols. Our findings establish post-hoc slimming as a practical deployment strategy for resource-constrained RS applications and as a diagnostic tool for representational redundancy in RS FMs. Upon acceptance, we will publish all code.

Related papers

Ranked by semantic similarity β€” how closely each paper's abstract matches this one (100% = near-identical topic).