This benchmark evaluates large language models' ability to perform fine-grained, region-specific semantic reasoning on remote sensing image pairs. It probes localized change comprehension by asking models to answer binary, multiple-choice, and open-ended questions about specific changes (e.g., new construction, vegetation loss) within satellite imagery. Use when the user wants to benchmark on RSRCC, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports Accuracy (%).
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill rsrcc-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Rsrcc Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-rsrcc-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: rsrcc-eval
description: This benchmark evaluates large language models' ability to perform fine-grained, region-specific semantic reasoning on remote sensing image pairs. It probes localized change comprehension by asking models to answer binary, multiple-choice, and open-ended questions about specific changes (e.g., new construction, vegetation loss) within satellite imagery. Use when the user wants to benchmark on RSRCC, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports Accuracy (%).
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2604.20623
bibtex_key: kazoom2026rsrcc
confidence: high
---
# rsrcc-eval
> RSRCC: A Remote Sensing Regional Change Comprehension Benchmark Constructed via Retrieval-Augmented Best-of-N Ranking — Kazoom et al. (2026) (arXiv:2604.20623, 2026)
## What this evaluates
This benchmark evaluates large language models' ability to perform fine-grained, region-specific semantic reasoning on remote sensing image pairs. It probes localized change comprehension by asking models to answer binary, multiple-choice, and open-ended questions about specific changes (e.g., new construction, vegetation loss) within satellite imagery.
## Datasets
- **RSRCC** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
## Metrics
- `Human Agreement (%)` — range: percent
- Percentage of human evaluators who agree with the generated questions or answers.
- `Accuracy (%)` **(primary)** — range: percent
- Correctness rate for binary (Yes/No) and multiple-choice responses.
- `BLEU` — range: percent
- n-gram precision measuring lexical overlap between model-generated answers and ground-truth answers.
- `BERTScore (F1)` — range: [0, 1]
- Semantic similarity score between model-generated and human-written captions using contextual embeddings.
- `CIDEr` — range: percent
- Consensus-based metric measuring similarity between generated captions and multiple human references using TF-IDF weighted n-grams.
- `SPICE` — range: percent
- Semantic propositional metric evaluating agreement between generated and reference captions at the level of objects, attributes, and relations.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Paired high-resolution satellite images (typically 512x512 px) with a region-specific question (Yes/No, multiple-choice, or open-ended) targeting localized changes.
**Output**: For closed-ended questions: 'Yes'/'No' or a selected option. For open-ended questions: a free-text caption or answer.
## Scoring recipe
```python
if question_type in ['Yes/No', 'Multiple-Choice']:
score = 1.0 if prediction == gold else 0.0
return mean(score)
elif question_type == 'Open-Ended':
bleu = compute_bleu(prediction, gold)
bertscore = compute_bertscore_f1(prediction, gold)
cider = compute_cider(prediction, gold_references)
spice = compute_spice(prediction, gold_references)
return {'BLEU': bleu, 'BERTScore': bertscore, 'CIDEr': cider, 'SPICE': spice}
```
## Common pitfalls
- Accuracy is only applicable to closed-ended (Yes/No, Multiple-Choice) questions, not open-ended ones.
- BLEU, CIDEr, and SPICE are strictly for open-ended responses and should not be computed for binary/multiple-choice outputs.
- Human Agreement is evaluated per dataset creation pipeline stage, not just as a final model benchmark metric.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> We evaluate our framework both quantitatively and qualitatively to assess scalability, reliability, and semantic consistency using the following metrics: Human Agreement (%) - percentage of evaluators agreeing with generated questions or answers. Accuracy (%) - correctness of binary (Yes/No) and multiple-choice responses. BLEU - $n$-gram precision measuring lexical overlap between model-generated answers and the ground-truth answers in the dataset. BERTScore (F1) - semantic similarity between model-generated and human-written captions.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{kazoom2026rsrcc,
title={RSRCC: A Remote Sensing Regional Change Comprehension Benchmark Constructed via Retrieval-Augmented Best-of-N Ranking},
author={Kazoom et al. (2026)},
year={2026},
note={arXiv:2604.20623}
}
```
- arXiv: 2604.20623
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!