Automated Mapping of Post-Storm Roof Damage Using Deep Learning and Aerial Imagery: A Case Study in the Caribbean
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Roof damage caused by hurricanes and other storms needs to be rapidly identified and repaired to help communities recover from catastrophic events and support the well-being of residents. Traditional, ground-based inspections are time-consuming but have recently been expedited via manual interpretation of remote sensing imagery. To potentially accelerate the process, automated methods involving artificial intelligence (i.e., deep learning) can be applied. Here, we present an end-to-end workflow for training and evaluating deep learning image segmentation models that detect and delineate two classes of post-storm roof damage: roof decking and roof holes. Mask2Former models were trained using 2500 roof decking and 2500 roof hole samples from drone RGB orthomosaics (0.02–0.08 m ground sample distance [GSD]) captured in Sint Maarten and Dominica following Hurricanes Irma and Maria in 2017. The trained models were evaluated using 1440 reference samples from 10 test images, including eight drone orthomosaics (0.03–0.08 m GSD) acquired outside of the training areas in Sint Maarten and Dominica, one drone orthomosaic (0.05 m GSD) from the Bahamas, and one orthomosaic (0.15 m GSD) captured in the US Virgin Islands with a crewed aircraft and different sensor. Accuracies increased with a single-class modeling approach (instead of training one dual-class model) and expansion of the training datasets with 500 roof decking and 500 roof hole samples from external areas in the Bahamas and US Virgin Islands. The best-performing models reached overall F1 scores of 0.88 (roof decking) and 0.80 (roof hole). In this study, we provide: our end-to-end deep learning workflow; a detailed accuracy assessment organized by modeling approach, damage class, and test location; discussion of implications, limitations, and future research; and access to all data, tools, and trained models.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".