Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · October 6, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Machine learning classifiers for remote sensing imagery are typically evaluated as though every pixel were an independent sample. Spatial autocorrelation violates this assumption, since neighboring pixels carry redundant information which inflates sample sizes. How many independent samples does a satellite image actually contain? For an $n \times n$ image whose spatial correlation persists over a range of $r$ pixels, the effective sample size is $Θ(n^2/r^2)$, not $n^2$. We prove this as a finite-sample upper bound for classifiers on spatially correlated data, and show via a matching lower bound that the rate is tight, and no algorithm can do better. We extend the results to images with directional correlation and spatially varying correlation structure. Our result justifies spatial cross-validation since block holdout with separation proportional to the correlation range achieves optimal generalization guarantees, while random holdout can underestimate confidence interval widths by a factor proportional to $r$. We validate the theory on synthetic data and satellite image tiles from three sensors (Landsat 8, Sentinel-2, and Sentinel-1).