Satellite-Based Detection of Looted Archaeological Sites Using Machine Learning
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
Looting at archaeological sites poses a severe risk to cultural heritage, yet monitoring thousands of remote locations remains operationally difficult.
Benchmark evidence is limited
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 80/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
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.
No verified maintained repo yet
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Time to first repro: a few days
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Reproduction readiness
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
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXJump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.