Bimal Gajera

Mirali Purohit, Bimal Gajera, Irish Mehta et al.

We introduce MOMO, the first multi-sensor foundation model for Mars remote sensing. MOMO uses model merge to integrate representations learned independently from three key Martian sensors (HiRISE, CTX, and THEMIS), spanning resolutions from 0.25 m/pixel to 100 m/pixel. Central to our method is our novel Equal Validation Loss (EVL) strategy, which aligns checkpoints across sensors based on validation loss similarity before fusion via task arithmetic. This ensures models are merged at compatible convergence stages, leading to improved stability and generalization. We train MOMO on a large-scale, high-quality corpus of $\sim 12$ million samples curated from Mars orbital data and evaluate it on 9 downstream tasks from Mars-Bench. MOMO achieves better overall performance compared to ImageNet pre-trained, earth observation foundation model, sensor-specific pre-training, and fully-supervised baselines. Particularly on segmentation tasks, MOMO shows consistent and significant performance improvement. Our results demonstrate that model merging through an optimal checkpoint selection strategy provides an effective approach for building foundation models for multi-resolution data. The model weights, pretraining code, pretraining data, and evaluation code are available at: https://github.com/kerner-lab/MOMO.

Thilini Wijesiriwardene, Ruwan Wickramarachchi, Bimal G. Gajera et al.

Over the past decade, analogies, in the form of word-level analogies, have played a significant role as an intrinsic measure of evaluating the quality of word embedding methods such as word2vec. Modern large language models (LLMs), however, are primarily evaluated on extrinsic measures based on benchmarks such as GLUE and SuperGLUE, and there are only a few investigations on whether LLMs can draw analogies between long texts. In this paper, we present ANALOGICAL, a new benchmark to intrinsically evaluate LLMs across a taxonomy of analogies of long text with six levels of complexity -- (i) word, (ii) word vs. sentence, (iii) syntactic, (iv) negation, (v) entailment, and (vi) metaphor. Using thirteen datasets and three different distance measures, we evaluate the abilities of eight LLMs in identifying analogical pairs in the semantic vector space. Our evaluation finds that it is increasingly challenging for LLMs to identify analogies when going up the analogy taxonomy.