Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

Satellite-Based Detection of Looted Archaeological Sites Using Machine Learning

Girmaw Abebe Tadesse, Titien Bartette, Andrew Hassanali, Allen Kim, Jonathan Chemla +5 morePublished Feb 23, 2026
arXiv PDF
Researcher verdict
Context only
Use as context only
Benchmark evidence
Thin evidence
Verify before relying
Time to first repro
A few days
Plan setup time
Risk flags
2
Review before use

Abstract

Domain fit: AI-adjacent · Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.

Looting at archaeological sites poses a severe risk to cultural heritage, yet monitoring thousands of remote locations remains operationally difficult. We present a scalable and satellite-based pipeline to detect looted archaeological sites, using PlanetScope monthly mosaics (4.7m/pixel) and a curated dataset of 1,943 archaeological sites in Afghanistan (898 looted, 1,045 preserved) with multi-year imagery (2016--2023) and site-footprint masks. We compare (i) end-to-end CNN classifiers trained on raw RGB patches and (ii) traditional machine learning (ML) trained on handcrafted spectral/texture features and embeddings from recent remote-sensing foundation models. Results indicate that ImageNet-pretrained CNNs combined with spatial masking reach an F1 score of 0.926, clearly surpassing the strongest traditional ML setup, which attains an F1 score of 0.710 using SatCLIP-V+RF+Mean, i.e., location and vision embeddings fed into a Random Forest with mean-based temporal aggregation. Ablation studies demonstrate that ImageNet pretraining (even in the presence of domain shift) and spatial masking enhance performance. In contrast, geospatial foundation model embeddings perform competitively with handcrafted features, suggesting that looting signatures are extremely localized. The repository is available at https://github.com/microsoft/looted_site_detection.

Results and benchmarks

Freshness tier: hot
Looting at archaeological sites poses a severe risk to cultural heritage, yet monitoring thousands of remote locations remains operationally difficult.

Implementation

No direct implementation yet

Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.

Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.

Implementation evidence summary
Confidence: low

Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.

Reproduction risks
  • Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow

Reproduction readiness

Time to first repro: days
Last checked: Aug 26, 2026

No repo

No verified implementation available

  • No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.

Hardware requirements

  • Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.

Hugging Face artifacts

No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.

Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.

Research context

Tasks

Image classification

Methods

None detected

Domains

Computer vision, Geospatial AI

Evaluation and human feedback data

Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.

Open in HFEPX
Explore similar papers

Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.