sparse-to-dense retrieval from satellite imagery

Ice Cloud Geometry Retrieval with Calibrated Uncertainty

EarthCARE's radar and lidar measure cloud structure in the vertical, but only under the flight path. VIIRS covers the whole planet and is sensitive only to the cloud top. This work predicts the vertical structure at every VIIRS pixel, with intervals that hold 90 % of measurements.

Ayush Prasad

Space and Earth Observation Centre, Finnish Meteorological Institute

ECCV 2026 spotlight (top 2 % of submissions)

A rotating globe. It begins showing only the narrow EarthCARE ground tracks, then the dense predicted cloud top height fills the whole planet.

Overview

Active satellites measure cloud vertical structure directly, but cover under one percent of the planet a day. Passive imagers cover all of it and are sensitive only to the cloud top. This work trains a ConvNeXt U-Net on co-located VIIRS and EarthCARE patches where labels land on about one percent of pixels, and predicts eight cloud geometry targets at every pixel with 90 % prediction intervals calibrated by conformalized quantile regression. Prediction quality does not depend on distance to the labelled column, which says the model learns a per-pixel spectral retrieval rather than interpolating from nearby labels.

8
targets per pixel
100,540
co-located patches
609 M
predictions in a day
90 %
interval coverage

The problem

Where the labels come from

EarthCARE's radar and lidar measure vertical structure directly, but only under the flight path: five kilometres wide, under one percent of the planet a day. VIIRS, a passive imager, covers the whole planet twice a day in ten spectral bands at 750 m, and is sensitive to the cloud top.

Cloud top and base height set how much shortwave a cloud reflects and how much outgoing longwave it traps. Neither is observable from directly above. Cloud feedbacks remain the largest single source of uncertainty in climate projection.

As a learning problem this is dense prediction from extremely sparse spatial supervision. Roughly one pixel in a hundred carries a label, and the labels are a loss mask rather than an input.

A radar curtain through an ice cloud
The radar curtain: a slice under the flight path with the cloud resolved in the vertical. Image: JAXA/NICT/ESA.

Method

The model

Ten VIIRS channels go in. A three-stage ConvNeXt encoder runs down to 384 channels, ERA5 reanalysis is projected and added at the bottleneck, and a mirrored decoder returns eight targets at every pixel, each as three quantiles trained with a pinball loss. The loss is computed only on the labelled pixels. Inference runs on all 4096. The model has fourteen million parameters, and the reported version averages five independently seeded copies.

One test patch: the VIIRS thermal image, then the labelled column, then the dense prediction spreading to every pixel, then the width of the 90 percent interval.
One test scene. Of every test patch with no missing pixels, at least 40 labels and a cloudy image, this is the one whose error is closest to the test-set average. Measured pixels stay drawn on top of the prediction throughout, on the same fixed colour scale.

Calibration

Predicted quantiles are miscalibrated out of the box. Ours reach 0.796 coverage against a nominal 0.90, and deep ensembles reach 0.371. Conformalized quantile regression scores each held-out pixel by how far the measurement falls outside its band, takes the empirical 1−α quantile of those scores, and widens every band by it. Coverage is then at least 1−α in finite samples under exchangeability alone, with no distributional assumption, applied per target. Cloud base sits below cloud top, and the other orderings come free from a projection after training, which takes violations to zero at no cost in R².

Results

Accuracy on the test set

Predicted against measured cloud top height, every test pixel
Every test pixel, the median prediction against the measurement.
R squared for each of the eight targets against a per-pixel baseline
All eight targets against a per-pixel MLP baseline. Heights recover well. Geometric thickness at 0.41 is close to the limit of what a passive measurement carries.

Uncertainty methods

Eight methods put through the identical conformal step. Afterwards every one sits at 90 % coverage by construction, so what separates them is the width of the interval. Methods that are better calibrated before the correction end up tighter after it. Deep ensembles start at 37 % coverage, so the correction has to inflate them furthest to get there.

MethodMAEPICPMPIW raw PICPρ
Quantile ensemble (ours) .742 6.08 .908 25.1 .796 .415
Deep ensemble .732 6.20 .911 27.9 .371 .242
Quantile .731 6.27 .912 26.8 .791 .388
Evidential .720 6.39 .912 28.9 .511 .328
Heteroscedastic .718 6.55 .901 27.1 .811 .372
MC-dropout .716 6.41 .918 31.1
Quantile + ordering .712 6.84 .907 25.9 .777 .383
Physics head .705 6.95 .911 30.2 .683 .318
Mean over the eight targets. MAE and MPIW in levels. Shaded row is ours. The coloured value is the best in its column.

What did not help

A 2.6 B-parameter SatVision-giant Swin-v2 encoder, pretrained on 100 M satellite images, gave no gain over the 14 M model trained from scratch, even fine-tuned end to end. Passive radiometry carries only two or three degrees of freedom for vertical structure, so more capacity does not help. Building the ordering constraint into the architecture, through ordinal heads or constrained output layers, was consistently worse than the plain network, and cost two and a half points of R² when combined. Spectral consistency regularization, cross-attention ERA5 fusion and adversarial training did not help either.

Global

Global inference

Running the model over a single day of VIIRS, 241 granules, with stride-32 overlapping tiles averaged and gridded at 0.25°, gives complete global coverage in 2.4 hours on one GPU. Interval width is widest over the deep tropics. Deep convection is the one place coverage falls short, by 3.8 %.

Global maps of predicted cloud top height and of the 90 percent interval width
Predicted cloud top height on the left, width of the 90 % interval on the right.

Open release

Citation

@inproceedings{prasad2026icecloud,
  title     = {Ice Cloud Geometry Retrieval with Calibrated Uncertainty
               from Passive Satellite Imagery},
  author    = {Prasad, Ayush},
  booktitle = {European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)},
  year      = {2026}
}