Rapid Flood Mapping from Aerial Imagery Using Fine-Tuned SAM and ResNet-Backboned U-Net
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Flooding is a major natural hazard that requires a rapid response to minimize the loss of life and property and to facilitate damage assessment. Aerial imagery, especially images from unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and helicopters, plays a crucial role in identifying areas affected by flooding. Therefore, developing an efficient model for rapid flood mapping is essential. In this study, we present two segmentation approaches for the mapping of flood-affected areas: (1) a fine-tuned Segment Anything Model (SAM), comparing the performance of point prompts versus bounding box (Bbox) prompts, and (2) a U-Net model with ResNet-50 and ResNet-101 as pre-trained backbones. Our results showed that the fine-tuned SAM performed best in segmenting floods with point prompts (Accuracy: 0.96, IoU: 0.90), while Bbox prompts led to a significant drop (Accuracy: 0.82, IoU: 0.67). This is because flood images often cover the image from edge to edge, making Bbox prompts less effective at capturing boundary details. For the U-Net model, the ResNet-50 backbone yielded an accuracy of 0.87 and an IoU of 0.72. Performance improved slightly with the ResNet-101 backbone, achieving an accuracy of 0.88 and an IoU of 0.74. This improvement can be attributed to the deeper architecture of ResNet-101, which allows more complex and detailed features to be extracted, improving U-Net’s ability to segment flood-affected areas accurately. The results of this study will help emergency response teams identify flood-affected areas more quickly and accurately. In addition, these models could serve as valuable tools for insurance companies when assessing damage. Moreover, the segmented flood images generated by these models can serve as training data for other machine learning models, creating a pipeline for more advanced flood analysis and prediction systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".