EarthRecord: From Pixels to Land Change with Multimodal Agents over Four Decades of Satellite Imagery
Abstract
While multimodal agents now carry out complex data analysis with tools, their ability to turn decades of satellite imagery into reliable land-change analysis, crucial for Earth observation science, remains unmeasured. Existing benchmarks fall short: they pose questions on curated images or give agents preprocessed inputs, leaving out the raw multi-sensor archives where such analysis begins. We introduce EarthRecord, a benchmark built on the raw record of 56 sites: four decades of Landsat, MODIS, VIIRS, and Sentinel-2 data, with cloud masking and cross-sensor harmonization left to the agent. It poses 238 land-change questions across ten analysis tasks, scored against withheld references from global products, agreement among methods, and visual interpretation. Two controls test what answers rest on: the closed book removes the record, and instrument pairs alter one satellite's data while nothing changes on the ground. Evaluations of twelve multimodal agents reveal that leading agents complete most analyses end to end but falter when an answer requires mapping from imagery. Further analysis shows that the record moves answers from prior knowledge to the pixels but not yet to the real change on the ground: when one satellite's data are altered, half of the right answers follow the alteration. EarthRecord thus provides a principled platform for measuring and advancing agents from pixels to land change.
Community
EarthRecord asks whether multimodal agents can turn four decades of raw satellite imagery into reliable land-change analysis. For each question, the agent works in an offline sandbox (Python, shell, image viewer) on the record of one site as distributed by its providers: Landsat, MODIS, VIIRS and Sentinel-2 data, with cloud masking and cross-sensor harmonization left to the agent.
- 56 sites, 1984–2026; 238 land-change questions over ten analysis tasks, scored against withheld references
- Two controls: a closed book that removes the record, and 22 instrument pairs in which one satellite's data are altered while nothing changes on the ground
- Twelve agents evaluated; the best reaches 85.4% pass³. Leading agents complete most analyses end to end but falter when an answer requires mapping from imagery, and when one satellite's data are altered, half of the right answers follow the alteration
Data: https://huggingface.co/datasets/haoranranranran/EarthRecord
Code and leaderboard: https://github.com/ranranrannervous/EarthRecord
Honestly, the instrument-pair control got me: alter one satellite's data while nothing changes on the ground, and see who follows. That half of the right answers followed the altered data is a sobering result. Did the closed-book control score surprisingly well on any of the ten analysis tasks?
Thanks for reading closely! That instrument-pair result was the most sobering finding for us too: 53.5% of originally correct answers flip after tampering with a single sensor—91% of them moving in the direction of the alteration—compared with only a 12% change rate on placebo pairs.
For the closed-book control across tasks (pass³ averaged over all 12 models, closed-book → with satellite record), we pulled the per-task breakdown from our released logs:
- Attribute (
72.5 → 80.0) is the clear standout: once an area is named, pretraining priors already carry a lot of weight on why land changed—4 of the 12 models score at least as high without seeing the data at all (peaking at90.0closed-book). - Season (
59.0 → 75.7) and Recovery (55.3 → 73.5) also start high, though Recovery is largely base-rate friendly (10 of the 11 reference cases did recover greenness). - Trend (
26.2 → 72.9) and Regional statistics (28.6 → 75.4) gain the most from actual data. On Trend, ~35% of closed-book runs simply abstain with insufficient evidence rather than guessing.
By site, prior knowledge actually beats having the imagery at well-known areas: on recognition questions there, closed-book scores 55.9 vs. 50.0 with the record. Every run is in results/runs.jsonl.gz in our GitHub repo if you'd like to dig into specific models!
Get this paper in your agent:
hf papers read 2611.12934 Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash Models citing this paper 0
No model linking this paper
Datasets citing this paper 1
Spaces citing this paper 0
No Space linking this paper
Collections including this paper 0
No Collection including this paper