Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 40 references

Monitoring Post-Disaster Urban Recovery Using High-Resolution SAR Time Series and Unsupervised Learning: Evidence from the 2023 T\"urkiye-Syria Earthquake

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Unsupervised high-resolution SAR time series can map post-earthquake reconstruction without labeled recovery data, and those structural signals can appear before nighttime lights recover.

desk verdict Solid multi-city SAR recovery demo with a real SAR–NTL complementarity story; the learning stack is familiar and the persistence proxy has structural holes, but the applied evidence is still worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.24180 v1 pith:YEP7MPHM submitted 2026-07-27 cs.LG cs.AI

Luigi Russo , Deodato Tapete , Silvia Liberata Ullo , Paolo Gamba This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords post-disasterrecoverysyntheticapertureradarCOSMO-SkyMedunsupervisedanomalydetectionConvLSTMautoencodermulti-temporalanalysisurbanreconstructionnighttimelights
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

After a major disaster, cities rebuild unevenly over months and years, but labeled maps of what was rebuilt where are usually missing. This paper argues that regular high-resolution radar (COSMO-SkyMed) time series, fed through an unsupervised ConvLSTM autoencoder, can turn persistent reconstruction errors into spatially explicit recovery maps. Applied to four cities hit by the 2023 Türkiye–Syria earthquakes, the method finds clustered, lasting anomalies that line up with debris clearance, temporary container camps, and new housing districts, with different spatial styles in small towns versus a large metro. Compared with SDGSAT-1 nighttime-light recovery scores, the radar anomalies track physical change in the built surface and can flag rebuilding earlier, while lights track power and night activity. The practical claim is that multi-temporal SAR plus unsupervised anomaly detection is an operational way to monitor reconstruction when ground truth is unavailable.

What carries the argument

Persistence surface from reconstruction error: per-pixel absolute ConvLSTM autoencoder error, Gaussian-smoothed, 90th-percentile thresholded, morphologically cleaned, then summed over time and cut at 60% of frames into transient / emerging / persistent recovery classes.

What would settle it

On held-out city blocks with independent dated construction inventories (or dense optical time stamps of build start), check whether pixels labeled persistent recovery truly host sustained structural change more often than seasonal or non-recovery change, and whether SAR flags those sites before the matching nighttime-light recovery metric rises.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Multi-temporal COSMO-SkyMed backscatter, processed with a leave-one-city-out ConvLSTM autoencoder, yields persistence-classified recovery maps (transient, emerging, persistent) that capture heterogeneous structural reconstruction across four earthquake-hit cities without labeled recovery data, and those SAR anomaly signals are complementary to—and can precede—SDGSAT-1 nighttime-light recovery indicators.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that places which keep showing high reconstruction error after simple cleanup are mostly real rebuilding, not seasons, unrelated works, radar artifacts, or the way the image dates were chosen by looking at optical scenes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Agencies can produce city-scale reconstruction hotspot maps from radar alone when labeled recovery training sets do not exist.
  • Smaller towns and large metros will show different spatial recovery signatures—compact fringe hotspots versus fragmented metropolitan mosaics—that planners can track over time.
  • SAR-based maps can flag physical rebuilding before electricity and night activity return, so they fill an earlier stage of the recovery timeline than nighttime lights.
  • Overlaying the same persistence maps with geology can show whether permanent rebuilds land on more competent rock or stay on alluvial ground.
  • The same unsupervised pipeline is intended to transfer to other sudden disasters where recovery is long and labels are scarce.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If denser multi-mission SAR stacks replace the sparse, optically guided date picks, the same persistence cut could separate construction phases week-by-week rather than only major recovery stages.
  • Agreement and disagreement layers with nighttime lights could become a dual-track product: structure-first versus function-first recovery dashboards for the same city.
  • False positives from roads and lighting in light-only maps, and from unoccupied new builds in SAR-only maps, suggest a simple rule: trust SAR for empty shells and lights for lived-in blocks.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an unsupervised framework for post-disaster urban recovery monitoring from multi-temporal COSMO-SkyMed SAR time series. A ConvLSTM autoencoder is trained (leave-one-city-out) to reconstruct six-date SAR stacks over four cities hit by the 2023 Türkiye–Syria earthquake; per-pixel absolute reconstruction error is Gaussian-smoothed, thresholded per frame at the 90th percentile, morphologically cleaned, and accumulated into a persistence surface P(p) that is discretized into three recovery classes (C1 transient, C2 emerging, C3 persistent, P ≥ 60% of frames). The authors present recovery maps for Nurdağı, İslahiye, Türkoğlu and Kahramanmaraş, validate qualitatively against Google Earth/Sentinel-2 and MTA geological maps, and compare against the independent SDGSAT-1 NTL recovery product of Gong et al. for Nurdağı, arguing SAR and NTL capture complementary (structural vs. functional) recovery dimensions, with SAR potentially earlier.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper addresses a real gap: EO-based recovery (vs. damage) monitoring is thin, and a label-free SAR approach is operationally attractive. Genuine strengths: the pipeline is specified end-to-end (architecture, loss with α=0.84, LOCO protocol, Hann mosaicking, persistence rules); the four-city application is detailed; the SAR–NTL comparison is a falsifiable external check and the discussion of NTL-only false positives (street lighting on highways, Fig. 10, example 4) is a concrete, useful contribution; the geological-context interpretation adds value beyond a pure methods demo. However, validation is qualitative and example-based, no code/data availability is stated, and — as detailed below — two design features (a static decoder and a fixed per-frame anomaly budget) mean the persistence statistic is not yet shown to be a selective measure of change rather than of reconstruction difficulty.

major comments (5)
  1. [§III.A, Eq. (10)] The decoder produces a single image from h_T^(2) that is replicated across all t (no temporal decoder), so x̂_t is identical for every date and E_t(p)=|X_t(p)−X̂(p)| measures per-frame deviation from one static consensus scene — not from 'learned temporal patterns' as claimed (§III.A and abstract). A pixel that is intrinsically hard to reconstruct (layover/double-bounce in dense cores, bright reflectors, seasonally variable fringe) is then anomalous on every date and accumulates P(p)≥τ without any change occurring; the C3 class is the one most exposed to this confound, and it is precisely the class the recovery interpretation rests on. Please either add a temporal decoder and show the effect, or reframe the claim and provide a control: e.g., correlate the per-pixel mean error with P(p), and/or run the pipeline on pre-event stacks or stable non-urban control areas to show C3 does not ligh
  2. [§III.D, Eq. (18); Figs. 4–5] Thresholding each frame independently at its own 90th percentile imposes a fixed ~10% anomaly budget per date regardless of how much real change exists. The C1–C3 class fractions (Fig. 4) and the cumulative-area curves (Fig. 5) are therefore partly set by design, not freely measured. With T=6 and τ=0.6T (i.e., P≥4), the expected class fractions under spatially random per-frame top-decile masks are analytically computable; please report this null model and show that the observed class fractions and spatial clustering exceed it significantly. This is the concrete test that would convert the persistence surface from a product-design choice into evidence of selective change detection.
  3. [§IV.C, Fig. 5] Internal inconsistency: the cumulative anomalous area is defined as the union of all detections from the start of monitoring up to each date, which must be non-decreasing, yet the Kahramanmaraş values reported are 13.48% (May-23), 4.80% (Aug-23), 9.13% (Jan-24), 16.23% (Oct-24), while the text describes 'a temporary stabilization between May and August 2023 followed by a steady and pronounced increase.' A decrease from 13.48% to 4.80% contradicts both the definition and the narrative. Please explain (e.g., does the processing extent change between the two SAR4 strips for Kahramanmaraş, or is the metric actually per-period rather than cumulative?) and correct the definition, the numbers, or the text.
  4. [§II.B, Table I] The six acquisition dates were 'guided by visual evidence from Google Earth and Sentinel-2 time series in order to sample distinct phases of post-disaster recovery.' Selecting SAR frames conditional on where/when change is already known to have occurred is a selection bias that inflates apparent sensitivity and precludes an unbiased estimate of the false-alarm rate (e.g., against seasonal backscatter at the urban fringe across Feb/May/Aug/Jan/Jun/Oct dates — exactly where persistent clusters are reported). It also contradicts §I's statement that frames are 'collected according to a regular acquisition plan.' Please soften that wording, and either demonstrate robustness on a regularly sampled subset or explicitly quantify the bias.
  5. [§IV.D–E] Validation is qualitative on hand-picked tiles, and the single quantitative external check (Nurdağı vs. Gong et al.) shows only 23.9% agreement (43.9% NTL-only, 32.2% SAR-only). The complementarity interpretation is plausible and the highway-lighting false-positive discussion is valuable, but it does not establish that the SAR-only 32.2% is dominated by true structural change rather than by the confounds in comments 1–2. Some quantitative accuracy evidence is needed to support 'effective and operational': e.g., manual change/no-change annotation of the validation tiles with detection/omission rates per class, or a systematic optical audit of all C3 clusters rather than selected examples.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§III, Eqs. (1)–(16)] Notation collisions: E(·) denotes the encoder (Eqs. 2–3) while E_t is the error map (Eq. 16); H and W are used both for the full image and for patch dimensions in Eq. (1). Please disambiguate.
  2. [§III.E, Table II] With T=6, τ=0.6T=3.6; since P is integer, C3 is effectively P≥4 and C2 is P∈{2,3}. State this explicitly, and report how the class maps change under τ=0.5T as a sensitivity check.
  3. [§III.D–F] Numerical values for the Gaussian σ, morphological radii r1/r2, and minimum component area are never given, and no code/data availability statement is included; both are needed for reproducibility. The choice α=0.84 is stated without justification or sensitivity analysis.
  4. [§IV.D, Fig. 6 caption] Row 1 text refers to 'the 7 February 2023 earthquake'; the mainshock was 6 February 2023 (01:17 UTC, 04:17 local). Also, 'post-event' imagery dated 07-02-2023 is used in several rows — worth confirming these are post-mainshock acquisitions given processing/delivery latency.
  5. [§III.B, Eq. (15)] Typo: 'c) Combined objective.:' has a stray period.
  6. [Fig. 5] The x-axis shows monthly ticks (May-23 to Nov-24) but only four evaluation dates are used; please clarify whether curves are linearly interpolated between sensing dates and mark the actual evaluation epochs.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No load-bearing circular derivation; recovery classes are transparent operational labels of anomaly persistence, validated externally rather than forced by the training objective.

  1. self definitional [Section III.E, Table II; also Eqs. 16–21]
    "Building upon the persistence surface P introduced in the previous subsection, we convert the continuous anomaly recurrence measure into a discrete and operational recovery map. ... Transient activity (C1) ... Emerging recovery (C2) ... Persistent recovery (C3) ... It is important to emphasize that these recovery classes do not directly measure construction status or damage severity. Rather, they represent statistically consistent departures from the learned post-event SAR dynamics."

    C1–C3 are defined directly as bins of the persistence count P of thresholded reconstruction-error masks. Calling those bins “recovery” is a naming/operational choice equivalent to the input metric by construction. This is minor and disclosed (proxy language); it does not close a scientific loop because the paper does not claim an independent derivation that persistence equals reconstruction, and external optical/NTL checks are not forced by this definition.

full rationale

The paper’s chain is: train a ConvLSTM autoencoder on multi-temporal CSK backscatter (reconstruction loss only), score absolute reconstruction error, threshold and accumulate persistence, then label persistence bins as C1–C3. That labeling is an operational product definition, not a claimed first-principles derivation of recovery from independent premises; the authors explicitly state the classes “do not directly measure construction status” and are a “proxy.” Training does not use recovery labels, damage maps from the authors’ prior work [30], or NTL targets—the AE is unsupervised under LOCO. External checks (Google Earth / Sentinel-2 interpretation; comparison to Gong et al. SDGSAT-1 NTL) are independent of the reconstruction loss and are not algebraically forced by it. Self-citation of [30] supplies post-event damage context and methodological continuity, not the recovery signal or a uniqueness theorem. Methodological concerns (absolute error without temporal baseline, per-frame 90th-percentile budget, sparse optically guided dates) affect correctness risk, not circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed a prediction; no uniqueness is imported; no known empirical law is merely relabeled. Score 1 only for the mild, transparent semantic step of naming persistence bins “recovery.”

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on treating unsupervised reconstruction error persistence as recovery activity, on a small set of hand-chosen temporal and spatial thresholds, and on licensed multi-temporal CSK stacks plus external optical/NTL context. No new physical entities are postulated; the ledger is mostly domain assumptions and free processing parameters.

free parameters (6)
  • reconstruction loss mix α = 0.84
    L_rec = α L_mse + (1-α) L_ssim; α fixed at 0.84 without reported sweep, yet shapes what the AE treats as normal structure vs error.
  • anomaly percentile threshold = 90th percentile
    Binary masks use the 90th percentile of smoothed error per frame (Eq. 18); directly controls which pixels enter persistence P.
  • persistent-recovery fraction τ = 0.6 × T frames
    C3 requires P ≥ τ with τ = 60% of available frames (Table II); defines the headline 'persistent recovery' class.
  • spatial regularization knobs (Gaussian σ, morphological r1/r2, min component area)
    Smoothed and morphologically cleaned masks B*_t determine P; values are not fully specified numerically but are load-bearing for map cleanliness.
  • patch size, stride, learning rate, batch size = 128, 64, 1e-4, 8
    128×128 patches, stride 64, Adam η=1e-4, B=8 set the learned background dynamics under LOCO.
  • CSK acquisition subset / sensing dates = 6 dates per city (Table I)
    Sparse phase-oriented dates chosen using Google Earth/Sentinel-2 evidence of recovery stages (Section II.B), not a fixed dense archive rule; changes which transitions enter the anomaly time series.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Temporally persistent deviations from learned SAR backscatter dynamics indicate recovery-related surface transformations (debris removal, temporary settlements, reconstruction).
    Stated in problem formulation and anomaly interpretation (Sections I, III.A, III.E); without it, maps are only anomaly persistence, not recovery.
  • domain assumption A ConvLSTM autoencoder trained with MSE+SSIM on multi-city patches learns the expected post-event spatio-temporal background sufficiently for absolute reconstruction error to be a usable anomaly score.
    Core of Section III.A–B; standard AE anomaly-detection premise applied to VHR SAR.
  • domain assumption Leave-one-city-out training yields transferable recovery anomaly detectors for held-out cities without city-specific labels.
    Section III.C; operational generalization claim depends on this.
  • domain assumption Small temporal offsets (~4 days) between Kahramanmaraş beams and shared dates for other cities do not materially impair multi-temporal recovery comparison.
    Section II.B / Table I justification.
  • domain assumption Visual interpretation of Google Earth and Sentinel-2, plus prior damage maps [30] and Gong et al. NTL products, are adequate external checks in the absence of systematic recovery ground truth.
    Validation design in Sections II.B, IV.D–E and limitations V.B.
  • standard math Standard deep-learning optimization and ConvLSTM recurrence are well-posed for the finite SAR sequences used.
    Architecture equations (3)–(10) and training objective (11)–(15).
invented entities (2)
  • Persistence-based SAR recovery classes C1/C2/C3 (transient activity, emerging recovery, persistent recovery)
    purpose: Discretize cumulative anomaly recurrence P into an operational recovery map product.
    Defined ad hoc from persistence rules in Table II; interpretive labels, not independently measured construction states.
  • SAR anomaly persistence surface P as recovery intensity proxy
    purpose: Aggregate refined binary anomaly masks over time into a single spatial recovery indicator.
    Eq. 21 defines P from model errors; meaning as 'recovery' is assigned by the authors, not measured externally as reconstruction status.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Monitoring Post-Disaster Urban Recovery Using High-Resolution SAR Time Series and Unsupervised Learning: Evidence from the 2023 T\"urkiye-Syria Earthquake." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YEP7MPHM

@misc{pith2026260724180,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Monitoring Post-Disaster Urban Recovery Using High-Resolution SAR Time Series and Unsupervised Learning: Evidence from the 2023 T\"urkiye-Syria Earthquake},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YEP7MPHM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24180}
}
read the original abstract

Monitoring post-disaster recovery is essential for understanding how urban systems rebuild and progressively return to functionality. However, tracking reconstruction remains difficult because reliable ground-truth information is often scarce and recovery processes evolve over time. This paper proposes an unsupervised framework for recovery monitoring based on multi-temporal synthetic aperture radar (SAR) observations and deep-learning anomaly detection. COSMO-SkyMed time series are used to identify persistent temporal anomalies associated with reconstruction activities and to generate spatially explicit recovery maps. The framework is applied to four cities severely affected by the 2023 Turkiye-Syria earthquakes, revealing heterogeneous reconstruction dynamics across different urban contexts. The results show spatially structured patterns of persistent anomalies related to reconstruction over damaged and cleared areas, temporary container settlements, and new residential districts. Comparison with nighttime-light recovery indicators derived from SDGSAT-1 data highlights the complementary nature of the two modalities: nighttime lights reflect the restoration of electricity supply and nighttime socioeconomic activity, whereas SAR anomalies capture structural changes in the built environment and may reveal reconstruction at earlier stages. The results demonstrate that multi-temporal SAR data combined with unsupervised learning provide an effective and scalable approach for monitoring post-disaster reconstruction when labeled recovery datasets are unavailable.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24180 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Study area and urban test sites affected by the 2023 T [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Unsupervised SAR-based framework for post-disaster recovery monitoring. A multi-temporal CSK SAR backscatter sequence is processed by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A first qualitative inspection reveals a marked cross-city [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Spatial distribution of post-earthquake recovery dynamics derived from multi-temporal SAR anomaly persistence in four affected cities: (a) T [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Proportional distribution of persistence-based recovery classes across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Temporal evolution of cumulative anomalous area (%) derived from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example of local recovery configurations in three sectors in Nurda [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Example of local recovery configurations in Islahiye. Each row shows the temporal evolution of a selected area, including pre-event, post-event (with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Example of local recovery configurations in Kahramanmaras¸. Each row shows the temporal evolution of a selected area, including pre-event, post [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Example of local recovery configurations in T [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Spatial comparison between recovery signals detected by the proposed SAR-based framework and the NTL-based recovery map from [35] for the city [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Semenza,La storia del Vajont raccontata dal geologo che ha scoperto la frana

    E. Semenza,La storia del Vajont raccontata dal geologo che ha scoperto la frana. K-Flash, 2005. [Online]. Available: https: //books.google.it/books?id=H82GAAAACAAJ

    2005

  2. [2]

    Forecasting giant, catastrophic slope collapse: lessons from vajont, northern italy,

    C. R. Kilburn and D. N. Petley, “Forecasting giant, catastrophic slope collapse: lessons from vajont, northern italy,”Geomorphology, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 21–32, 2003, studies on Large V olume Landslides. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169555 X03000527

    2003

  3. [3]

    Fatal landslides in europe,

    U. Haque, P. Blum, P. F. Da Silva, P. Andersen, J. Pilz, S. R. Chalov, J.-P. Malet, M. J. Aufli ˇc, N. Andres, E. Poyiadjiet al., “Fatal landslides in europe,”Landslides, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 1545–1554, 2016

    2016

  4. [4]

    Global patterns of loss of life from landslides,

    D. Petley, “Global patterns of loss of life from landslides,”Geology, vol. 40, no. 10, pp. 927–930, 2012

    2012

  5. [5]

    A review on synthetic aperture radar-based building damage assessment in disasters,

    P. Ge, H. Gokon, and K. Meguro, “A review on synthetic aperture radar-based building damage assessment in disasters,”Remote Sensing of Environment, vol. 240, p. 111693, 2020

    2020

  6. [6]

    Deep learning-based damage mapping with insar coherence time series,

    O. L. Stephenson, T. K ¨ohne, E. Zhan, B. E. Cahill, S.-H. Yun, Z. E. Ross, and M. Simons, “Deep learning-based damage mapping with insar coherence time series,”IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 60, pp. 1–17, 2021

    2021

  7. [7]

    Rapid domain adaptation for disaster impact assessment: Remote sensing of building damage after the 2021 germany floods,

    V . Hertel, C. Geiß, M. Wieland, and H. Taubenb ¨ock, “Rapid domain adaptation for disaster impact assessment: Remote sensing of building damage after the 2021 germany floods,”Science of Remote Sensing, 2025. 19

    2021

  8. [8]

    Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030,

    United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR), “Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030,” UN publication (web/PDF), 2015, accessed: 2026-01-27. [Online]. Available: https: //www.undrr.org/publication/sendai-framework-disaster-risk-reduction -2015-2030

    2015

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Assessment of the impact of the 2010 haiti earthquake on human activity based on dmsp/ols time series nighttime light data,

    X. Li, Z. Liu, X. Chen, and Q. Meng, “Assessment of the impact of the 2010 haiti earthquake on human activity based on dmsp/ols time series nighttime light data,”Journal of Applied Remote Sensing, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 044 515–044 515, 2019

    2010

  2. [10]

    Indirect seismic economic loss assessment and recovery evaluation using nighttime light images–application for wenchuan earthquake,

    J. Wang, J. Zhang, L. Gong, Q. Li, and D. Zhou, “Indirect seismic economic loss assessment and recovery evaluation using nighttime light images–application for wenchuan earthquake,”Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, vol. 18, no. 12, pp. 3253–3266, 2018

    2018

  3. [11]

    Night- time lights reveal substantial spatial heterogeneity and inequality in post-hurricane recovery,

    Q. Zheng, Y . Zeng, Y . Zhou, Z. Wang, T. Mu, and Q. Weng, “Night- time lights reveal substantial spatial heterogeneity and inequality in post-hurricane recovery,”Remote Sensing of Environment, vol. 319, p. 114645, 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    Satellite-based assessment of electricity restoration efforts in puerto rico after hurricane maria,

    M. O. Rom ´an, E. C. Stokes, R. Shrestha, Z. Wang, L. Schultz, E. A. S. Carlo, Q. Sun, J. Bell, A. Molthan, V . Kalbet al., “Satellite-based assessment of electricity restoration efforts in puerto rico after hurricane maria,”PloS one, vol. 14, no. 6, p. e0218883, 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    Estimating natural disaster loss using improved daily night-time light data,

    M. Jia, X. Li, Y . Gong, S. Belabbes, and L. Dell’Oro, “Estimating natural disaster loss using improved daily night-time light data,”International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, vol. 120, p. 103359, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Npp-viirs nighttime lights illustrate the post-earthquake damage and subsequent economic recovery in hatay province, turkey,

    F. Li, S. Liao, X. Fu, and T. Liu, “Npp-viirs nighttime lights illustrate the post-earthquake damage and subsequent economic recovery in hatay province, turkey,”ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, vol. 14, no. 4, p. 149, 2025

    2025

  7. [15]

    Monitoring post-fire recovery of various vegetation biomes us- ing multi-wavelength satellite remote sensing,

    E. Bousquet, A. Mialon, N. Rodriguez-Fernandez, S. Mermoz, and Y . Kerr, “Monitoring post-fire recovery of various vegetation biomes us- ing multi-wavelength satellite remote sensing,”Biogeosciences, vol. 19, no. 13, pp. 3317–3336, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Monitoring the recovery after 2016 hurricane matthew in haiti via markovian multitemporal region-based modeling,

    A. De Giorgi, D. Solarna, G. Moser, D. Tapete, F. Cigna, G. Boni, R. Rudari, S. B. Serpico, A. R. Pisani, A. Montuoriet al., “Monitoring the recovery after 2016 hurricane matthew in haiti via markovian multitemporal region-based modeling,”Remote Sensing, vol. 13, no. 17, p. 3509, 2021

    2016

  9. [17]

    W. A. Velasquez Hurtado and D. Tapete, “Monitoring the recovery process after major hydrological disasters with gis, change detection and open and free multi-sensor satellite imagery: Demonstration in haiti after hurricane matthew,”Water, vol. 17, no. 19, p. 2902, 2025

    2025

  10. [18]

    Self- supervised learning based anomaly detection in synthetic aperture radar imaging,

    M. Muzeau, C. Ren, S. Angelliaume, M. Datcu, and J.-P. Ovarlez, “Self- supervised learning based anomaly detection in synthetic aperture radar imaging,”IEEE Open Journal of Signal Processing, vol. 3, pp. 440–449, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Unsupervised flood detection on sar time series using variational autoencoder,

    R. Yadav, A. Nascetti, H. Azizpour, and Y . Ban, “Unsupervised flood detection on sar time series using variational autoencoder,”International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, vol. 126, p. 103635, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Intelligent assessment of building damage of 2023 t ¨urkiye–syria earth- quake by multiple remote sensing approaches,

    X. Yu, H. Xie, Y . Song, S. Xu, X. Li, X. Song, X. Fan, and F. Wang, “Intelligent assessment of building damage of 2023 t ¨urkiye–syria earth- quake by multiple remote sensing approaches,”npj Natural Hazards, vol. 1, p. 3, 2024

    2023

  13. [21]

    Information Bulletin 165 – The Copernicus Emergency Management Service assesses the damage caused by the earthquake in T ¨urkiye,

    Copernicus Emergency Management Service (CEMS), “Information Bulletin 165 – The Copernicus Emergency Management Service assesses the damage caused by the earthquake in T ¨urkiye,” Web page, Copernicus EMS Mapping, feb 2023, accessed: 2026-01-27. [Online]. Available: https://ma...

    2023

  14. [22]

    EMSR648 – Rapid Mapping: Earthquake in East Anatolian Fault Zone,

    ——, “EMSR648 – Rapid Mapping: Earthquake in East Anatolian Fault Zone,” Activation page (product list and metadata), Copernicus EMS Mapping, feb 2023, activation time reported as 06/02/2023 04:43 (UTC) on the activation page. Accessed: 2026-01-27. [Online]. Available: https://...

    2023

  15. [23]

    Earthquake in Turkey – Activation 797,

    International Charter ”Space and Major Disasters”, “Earthquake in Turkey – Activation 797,” Activation web page, feb 2023, accessed: 2026-01-27. [Online]. Available: https://disasterscharter.org/activations /earthquake-in-turkey-activation-797-

    2023

  16. [24]

    T ¨urkiye–Syria Earthquakes (6 February 2023): UNOSAT Rapid Mapping Products,

    UNITAR–UNOSAT, “T ¨urkiye–Syria Earthquakes (6 February 2023): UNOSAT Rapid Mapping Products,” Web page (product portal), Feb. 2023, accessed: 2026-01-27. [Online]. Available: https://unosat.org/pro ducts/3534

    2023

  17. [25]

    Quickquakebuildings: Post- earthquake sar-optical dataset for quick damaged-building detection,

    Y . Sun, Y . Wang, and M. Eineder, “Quickquakebuildings: Post- earthquake sar-optical dataset for quick damaged-building detection,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, vol. 21, pp. 1–5, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Large-scale building damage assessment based on recurrent neural networks using sar coherence time series: A case study of 2023 turkey–syria earthquake,

    Y . Yang, C. Xie, B. Tian, Y . Guo, Y . Zhu, Y . Yang, H. Fang, S. Bian, and M. Zhang, “Large-scale building damage assessment based on recurrent neural networks using sar coherence time series: A case study of 2023 turkey–syria earthquake,”Earthquake Spectra, vol. 40, no. 4, ...

    2023

  19. [27]

    Advanced post-earthquake building damage assessment: Sar coherence time matrix with vision transformer,

    Y . Yang, C. Xie, B. Tian, Y . Guo, Y . Zhu, S. Bian, Y . Yang, M. Zhang, and Y . Ruan, “Advanced post-earthquake building damage assessment: Sar coherence time matrix with vision transformer,”International Jour- nal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, vol. 133, p...

    2024

  20. [28]

    A deep learning application for building damage assessment using ultra-high-resolution remote sensing imagery in turkey earthquake,

    H. Xia, J. Wu, J. Yao, H. Zhu, A. Gong, J. Yang, L. Hu, and F. Mo, “A deep learning application for building damage assessment using ultra-high-resolution remote sensing imagery in turkey earthquake,” International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 947– 962, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Hacıefendio ˘glu, H

    K. Hacıefendio ˘glu, H. B. Bas ¸a ˘ga, V . Kahya, K. ¨Ozgan, and A. C. Altunıs ¸ık, “Automatic detection of collapsed buildings after the 6 febru- ary 2023 t ¨urkiye earthquakes using post-disaster satellite images with deep learning-based semantic segmentation models,”Buildin...

    2023

  22. [30]

    A deep learning framework for building damage assessment using vhr sar and geospatial data: Demonstration on the 2023 t ¨urkiye earthquake,

    L. Russo, D. Tapete, S. L. Ullo, and P. Gamba, “A deep learning framework for building damage assessment using vhr sar and geospatial data: Demonstration on the 2023 t ¨urkiye earthquake,”IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, vol. 19...

    2023

  23. [31]

    Using night lights from space to assess areas impacted by the 2023 turkey earthquake,

    N. Levin, “Using night lights from space to assess areas impacted by the 2023 turkey earthquake,”Remote Sensing, vol. 15, no. 8, p. 2120, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    The changes in nighttime lights caused by the turkey–syria earthquake using noaa-20 viirs day/night band data,

    Y . Yuan, C. Wang, S. Liu, Z. Chen, X. Ma, W. Li, L. Zhang, and B. Yu, “The changes in nighttime lights caused by the turkey–syria earthquake using noaa-20 viirs day/night band data,”Remote Sensing, vol. 15, no. 13, p. 3438, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Post-earthquake damage and recovery assessment using nighttime light data: A case study of the turkey–syria earthquake,

    J. Yang, S. Chen, Z. Wang, Y . Zhang, Y . Suo, J. Zhu, M. Wu, A. Zhang, and Q. Li, “Post-earthquake damage and recovery assessment using nighttime light data: A case study of the turkey–syria earthquake,” Remote Sensing, vol. 17, no. 20, p. 3431, 2025

    2025

  26. [34]

    Remote sensing nighttime lights reveal the post-earthquake losses and reconstruction situations in turkey–syria earthquake areas,

    Z. Xiao, Y . Pan, L. Jiang, Z. Wang, and K. Shi, “Remote sensing nighttime lights reveal the post-earthquake losses and reconstruction situations in turkey–syria earthquake areas,”IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, vol. 21, pp. 1–5, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Urban recovery patterns after the 2023 turkey-syria earthquake revealed by sdgsat-1 nighttime light data,

    Y . Gong, X. Li, D. Li, and X. Zhang, “Urban recovery patterns after the 2023 turkey-syria earthquake revealed by sdgsat-1 nighttime light data,” Remote Sensing of Environment, vol. 328, p. 114888, 2025

    2023

  28. [36]

    M 7.8 – t ¨urkiye (t ¨urkiye–syria earth- quake sequence), event page us6000jllz,

    U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), “M 7.8 – t ¨urkiye (t ¨urkiye–syria earth- quake sequence), event page us6000jllz,” https://earthquake.usgs.gov/ea rthquakes/eventpage/us6000jllz, 2023, accessed 2026-01-31

    2023

  29. [37]

    High-resolution co-seismic fault offsets of the 2023 t¨urkiye earthquakes derived from optical satellite image correlation,

    F. Provost, V . Karabacak, J.-P. Malet, J. Van der Woerd, M. Meghraoui, F. Massonet al., “High-resolution co-seismic fault offsets of the 2023 t¨urkiye earthquakes derived from optical satellite image correlation,” Scientific Reports, vol. 14, p. 6834, 2024. [Online]. Availabl...

    2023

  30. [38]

    EO Data Access for the Kahramanmaras ¸ Event Supersite,

    GEO Geohazard Supersites and Natural Laboratories (GSNL), “EO Data Access for the Kahramanmaras ¸ Event Supersite,” https://geo-gsnl.org/ supersites/event-supersites/active-event-supersites/kahramanmaras-eve nt-supersite/eo-data-access-for-the-kahramanmaras-event-supersite/, 2...

    2026

  31. [39]

    Convolutional lstm network: A machine learning approach for precipitation nowcasting,

    X. Shi, Z. Chen, H. Wang, D.-Y . Yeung, W.-k. Wong, and W.-c. Woo, “Convolutional lstm network: A machine learning approach for precipitation nowcasting,” 2015. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.04214

    2015 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Introducing Hann windows for reducing edge-effects in patch-based image segmentation,

    N. Pielawski and C. W ¨ahlby, “Introducing Hann windows for reducing edge-effects in patch-based image segmentation,”PLOS ONE, vol. 15, no. 3, p. e0229839, Mar. 2020. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229839 20 Luigi RussoStudent Member, IEEE, earned...

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.