Are Pretrained Image Matchers Good Enough for SAR-Optical Satellite Registration?

TL;DR

This paper evaluates the effectiveness of pretrained image matchers for cross-modal SAR-optical satellite registration without fine-tuning, revealing insights into their transferability and protocol sensitivity.

Contribution

It provides a comprehensive zero-shot benchmarking of 24 pretrained matchers on satellite data, highlighting the role of foundation-model features and deployment protocols.

Findings

Explicit cross-modal training does not always outperform non-cross-modal matchers.

RoMa achieves the lowest mean error without cross-modal training.

Deployment choices significantly impact registration accuracy, sometimes more than the matcher selection.

Abstract

Cross-modal optical-SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) registration is a bottleneck for disaster-response via remote sensing, yet modern image matchers are developed and benchmarked almost exclusively on natural-image domains. We evaluate twenty-four pretrained matcher families--in a zero-shot setting with no fine-tuning or domain adaptation on satellite or SAR data--on SpaceNet9 and two additional cross-modal benchmarks under a deterministic protocol with tiled large-image inference, robust geometric filtering, and tie-point-grounded metrics. Our results reveal asymmetric transfer--matchers with explicit cross-modal training do not uniformly outperform those without it. While XoFTR (trained for visible-thermal matching) and RoMa achieve the lowest reported mean error at $3.0$ px on the labeled SpaceNet9 training scenes, RoMa achieves this without any cross-modal training, and MatchAnything-ELoFTR ($3.4$ px)--trained on synthetic cross-modal pairs--matches closely, suggesting (as a working hypothesis) that foundation-model features (DINOv2) may contribute to modality invariance that partially substitutes for explicit cross-modal supervision. 3D-reconstruction matchers (MASt3R, DUSt3R), which are not designed for traditional 2D image matching, are highly protocol-sensitive and remain fragile under default settings. Deployment protocol choices (geometry model, tile size, inlier gating) shift accuracy by up to $33\times$ for a single matcher, sometimes exceeding the effect of swapping matchers entirely within the evaluated sweep--affine geometry alone reduces mean error from $12.34$ to $9.74$ px. These findings inform both practical deployment of existing matchers and future matcher design for cross-modal satellite registration.