Post-Hurricane Debris Segmentation Using Fine-Tuned Foundational Vision Models

Ashok Veeraraghavan; Guha Balakrishnan; Jamie Ellen Padgett; Kooshan Amini; Yuhao Liu

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 24 references

Post-Hurricane Debris Segmentation Using Fine-Tuned Foundational Vision Models

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fine-tuning CLIPSeg on 1,200 consensus-labeled aerial images yields a debris segmenter that transfers to Hurricane Ida, unseen in training, with Dice 0.70 on debris-positive patches.

desk verdict A useful open dataset and a credible held-out-event transfer result; the paper just needs to state its inference protocol explicitly to close the label-leakage question. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.12542 v2 pith:RJ7QH4PL submitted 2025-04-17 cs.CV

Kooshan Amini , Yuhao Liu , Jamie Ellen Padgett , Guha Balakrishnan , Ashok Veeraraghavan This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CV

keywords debrissegmentationhurricanedamageassessmentCLIPSegfoundationmodelsdomaingeneralizationaerialimagerymulti-annotatorconsensusvisualpromptengineering

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

The paper sets out to turn a general-purpose vision-language segmentation model into a debris detector that works across hurricane regions it has never seen. The authors assemble roughly 1,200 aerial RGB patches from Hurricanes Ian and Ike, have multiple annotators label each image, and aggregate the labels into a consensus ground truth. They then fine-tune the CLIPSeg architecture, freezing its CLIP image and text encoders and training only the segmentation decoder, using text prompts plus engineered visual prompts that darken and blur non-debris background. On 273 Hurricane Ida images held out entirely from training, the resulting model, fCLIPSeg, reaches a Dice score of 0.70 on debris-positive patches and 0.99 on debris-free patches. If this holds, a small, carefully annotated dataset is enough to adapt a foundation model to a brand-new disaster region using only standard RGB imagery.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is fCLIPSeg, a fine-tuned version of the CLIPSeg architecture: a frozen CLIP ViT-B/16 visual encoder and a frozen CLIP text transformer feed a transformer-based decoder that is the only part trained. Segmentation is driven by prompts, text prompts such as 'debris at low-density' and 'debris at high-density', and during fine-tuning by engineered visual prompts in which all pixels not belonging to the target debris class are darkened and blurred. The decoder is trained with binary cross-entropy against consensus annotations for the sampled density level, and the text and visual CLIP embeddings are randomly interpolated as a data-augmentation trick. This mechanism is what lets a small dataset steer a large pre-trained model toward a novel visual category.

What would settle it

Re-run the 273-image Hurricane Ida evaluation feeding the model only its text prompts and original RGB images, with no label-derived visual prompts; if the Dice score drops well below 0.70, the reported result came from label leakage rather than learned generalization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that fine-tuning a pre-trained CLIPSeg model on about 1,200 multi-annotator consensus-labeled aerial images from Hurricanes Ian and Ike yields a debris segmentation model that transfers to Hurricane Ida, a region and event completely excluded from training. On the 273-image Ida test set, fCLIPSeg attains a Dice score of 0.70 and IoU of 0.65 on the 125 debris-positive images, and Dice and IoU of 0.99 on the 148 debris-free images, whereas the un-fine-tuned CLIPSeg scores 0.30 Dice on debris-positive images. The paper interprets this as evidence that the model has learned event-agnostic debris appearance in CLIP's feature space rather than memorizing the training regions, and presents fCLIPSeg as the first debris segmentation solution that generalizes across multiple disaster regions while requiring only standard RGB imagery at deployment.

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation assumes that at inference fCLIPSeg is prompted with text labels and unmodified RGB images only, not with engineered visual prompts built from the same human consensus labels that define the ground truth.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Emergency responders could deploy fCLIPSeg on newly captured RGB aerial imagery within days of a storm, without waiting for region-specific labeled data.
The open dataset of about 1,200 images from three hurricanes provides a reusable benchmark for future debris segmentation and domain-generalization work.
Because only the decoder is fine-tuned, the approach inherits CLIP's flexibility: the same recipe could be pointed at other novel disaster-related classes, such as floodwater or damaged structures, with modest annotation effort.
The near-perfect score on debris-free patches implies the model can be used to screen large areas for debris presence with very few false alarms, supporting debris-volume estimation and cleanup logistics planning at scale.

Reading between the lines

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

If the result holds, the patch-based deployment strategy of merging 50-meter crops into regional segmentation maps means the model can be applied to arbitrary aerial imagery without retraining for new extents.
The same consensus-annotation plus visual-prompt-engineering pipeline likely transfers to other remote-sensing segmentation tasks where labels are scarce and heterogeneous, such as flood or landslide mapping; this is our inference, not a paper claim.
A decisive test would train on Ian and Ike only and evaluate on a fourth hurricane with different construction materials and vegetation; if Dice stays near 0.70, the event-agnostic claim is robust.
The 0.99 debris-free Dice suggests a deployment pattern the paper does not discuss explicitly: using the model as a cheap pre-filter that flags only suspicious patches for human review.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a solid applied paper. The new piece is the dataset—about 1,200 50x50 m aerial RGB patches from three hurricanes with three-annotator consensus labels—and the evaluation design, which holds out all of Hurricane Ida. Fine-tuning CLIPSeg on Ian and Ike patches and getting Dice 0.70 on Ida debris-positive patches, with 0.99 on debris-free patches, is a real result if the protocol is what it appears to be.

What it does well: multi-annotator aggregation is the right instinct, the dataset is planned for release on DesignSafe, and the paper is honest about its own limitations (small fragments, vegetation confusions, limited geography). The held-out event is genuinely unseen—no parameters are fit to Ida. The improvement over the vanilla CLIPSeg baseline is large and directionally believable.

Where I'd push back, in order of size. First, the inference-time prompt protocol is under-specified. Section 4.B builds engineered visual prompts from the consensus labels, Section 4.C uses them during training, and Section 5 never states what is used at test time. The natural reading, consistent with the abstract's 'standard RGB imagery at deployment' and with Section 4.A and Figure 4, is that inference uses text prompts only and visual prompt engineering is a training-time augmentation. But because it isn't stated, the label-leakage path the stress-tester flagged is not closed. That is a one-paragraph fix.

Second, the empirical support is thinner than the headline: one baseline, one seed, no error bars, and a single held-out event. Low-density debris recall is 0.33, meaning most sparse debris is missed; calling the model 'event-agnostic' based on one event is a stretch. Third, the 'first event-agnostic debris segmentation model' claim is broader than the evidence; other debris segmentation systems exist, and 'event-agnostic' over one hurricane is a proof of concept, not a property.

Cited work looks fine; no self-citation problem. The paper deserves a serious referee. I'd ask for the code and data release, an explicit inference-protocol statement, and a modestly expanded evaluation (a second baseline, a few seeds) before publication.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces fCLIPSeg, a CLIPSeg model fine-tuned on approximately 1,200 multi-annotator consensus-labeled aerial RGB patches from Hurricanes Ian and Ike, and evaluates it on a held-out set of 273 images from Hurricane Ida. The authors report a Dice score of 0.70 on debris-positive Ida patches and 0.99 on debris-free patches, and claim this is the first event-agnostic debris segmentation model requiring only standard RGB imagery at deployment. The dataset and code are promised to be released upon acceptance.

Significance. If the main result is valid, the paper makes a useful empirical contribution: it demonstrates that a relatively small, multi-annotator consensus dataset can adapt a foundation model to a previously unseen disaster region, and the held-out Ida test set is a genuine generalization check. The dataset itself, combining three hurricanes with diverse resolutions and instruments, is a valuable resource for the disaster-response community. However, the central generalization claim is currently unverified because the inference protocol is underspecified: the paper never states whether fCLIPSeg is tested with text prompts only or with engineered visual prompts that are constructed from the same consensus labels used as ground truth. The paper also reports a single run without error bars, compares against only one baseline, and shows low recall for low-density debris (0.33). These issues must be resolved before the headline claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)

[§5, Table 1] The test-time inputs to fCLIPSeg are never stated. Section 4.B constructs engineered visual prompts P1 and P2 by darkening and blurring all pixels outside the target density class using the consensus annotations, and Section 4.C uses these prompts during fine-tuning. If the same label-derived prompts are provided at inference, the argmax in Eq. (2) becomes a trivial foreground/background separation for the debris-positive subset, and the reported Dice of 0.70 would reflect label leakage rather than generalization. The abstract's claim that deployment requires only standard RGB imagery is also in direct tension with the use of engineered visual prompts. The manuscript must specify exactly what is fed to the model for the Table 1 evaluation — text prompts only, or text plus visual prompts, and if visual prompts are used, how they are constructed without access to the ground truth. Until this is resolved, the main generalization claim is unverifiable.
[§5.B, Table 1] All metrics in Table 1 are reported for a single run with no variance across seeds or checkpoints. Given the small test set (125 positive images) and the stochasticity of fine-tuning, the headline gap between CLIPSeg (Dice 0.30) and fCLIPSeg (Dice 0.70) could be affected by run-to-run variability. Report mean and standard deviation over at least three seeds, and state the checkpoint-selection rule (Dice on the validation set) precisely, including whether early stopping was based on the validation split described in Fig. 2.
[§5.B, Table 1] Recall for low-density debris is 0.33, meaning two-thirds of low-density debris pixels are missed, and low-density precision is only 0.60. This substantially weakens the claim of 'robust' debris segmentation and has direct operational consequences for debris-volume estimation, which the paper acknowledges only qualitatively in Sec. 5.C. The discussion should quantitatively address this class-level failure and its implications for the event-agnostic generalization claim.
[§1 and §2, Related Work] The paper claims to be the 'first event-agnostic debris segmentation model' and asserts that CLIPSeg is the only foundational model with possible capacity for debris segmentation, but the experimental comparison is limited to zero-shot CLIPSeg. No comparison is made to a supervised U-Net or other standard segmentation architecture trained on the same data, nor to other foundation models such as SAM or Grounding DINO. Without such a comparison, the 'first' and 'generalizable' claims are not empirically established; at minimum, a supervised baseline trained on the same consensus dataset should be added.

minor comments (4)

[§5.A] In the deployment example, 'Estero Island, TX' should be 'Estero Island, FL', consistent with Fig. 2 and Sec. 3.A.2.
[Fig. 8 and §6.A] The caption for Fig. 8(a) and the accompanying text state 'Hurricane Ian (Category 5) in 2018'; Hurricane Ian made landfall in 2022. The year should be corrected.
[Table 1] The metric 'Recall [no debris]' for the debris-free subset is not a standard recall definition, since all ground-truth pixels are 'no debris'. Clarify how this value is computed (e.g., recall of the 'no debris' class as in Eq. (2) or a true-negative rate).
[§3 and §5] The dataset and code are stated to be released upon acceptance; for a paper whose core claim is reproducibility, a supplementary link or an anonymous review copy would strengthen the manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the held-out Ida evaluation is not fit to test labels, and visual prompt engineering is confined to fine-tuning in the stated protocol.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained: fCLIPSeg is obtained by fine-tuning the public CLIPSeg checkpoint on consensus-annotated Hurricane Ian and Ike patches (Sections 3 and 4), and the Hurricane Ida test set is entirely excluded from training, validation, and checkpoint selection (Sections 3.A.2, 5.A, and 6.A). The engineered visual prompts in Section 4.B are explicitly constructed for fine-tuning using the training labels, and the paper does not state that these ground-truth-derived prompts are used at inference; the deployment claim in the abstract ("requiring only standard RGB imagery during deployment") and the inference description in Section 5.A (effective batch size of 3, determined by the number of density levels) are consistent with text-prompt-only evaluation. No parameter, checkpoint, or prompt is fitted to the Ida test data, and no load-bearing claim is imported from a self-citation. The only residual concern is an evaluation-protocol ambiguity about whether test-time inputs might have included ground-truth-derived visual prompts, but that is not a demonstrated circular reduction in the paper's stated derivation and therefore does not affect the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of consensus annotations, the representativeness of two training hurricanes for a third unseen hurricane, and the assumption that inference does not use ground-truth-derived visual prompts. The paper introduces no new physical entities or conserved quantities, and no external benchmark is used for calibration; all fitted quantities are model weights and training hyperparameters.

free parameters (2)

Visual prompt engineering parameters (background brightness reduction and Gaussian blur kernel)
Section 4.B describes darkening and blurring the background but gives no exact values; these hand-chosen choices are part of the training recipe and are not evaluated on the held-out test set.
Fine-tuning hyperparameters (learning rate schedule, batch size, epoch count, alpha sampling range) = lr 1e-3 to 1e-4 cosine, batch size 64, 2000 epochs, alpha uniform [0,1]
Section 5.A lists these choices; they were selected using the Ian/Ike validation set, not the Ida test set, but they still shape the final model.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Per-pixel average with ceiling over three annotators' labels yields a correct consensus ground truth for debris segmentation.
Section 3.C, Eq. 1; this consensus is used both for supervision and for evaluation, with no independent expert validation or inter-annotator agreement statistics reported.
domain assumption Hurricanes Ian and Ike training imagery is sufficiently representative of the visual appearance of hurricane debris to transfer to Hurricane Ida.
Section 5; the held-out generalization claim rests on this transfer assumption, tested on only one unseen event.
ad hoc to paper At inference, fCLIPSeg does not need the engineered visual prompts that are constructed from ground-truth labels; text prompts alone are sufficient.
Sections 4.B and 4.C describe visual prompt engineering for training; Section 5 does not specify the inference-time conditioning, so the evaluation either assumes text-only prompts or risks label leakage.
domain assumption NOAA Emergency Response Imagery is a valid operational proxy for post-hurricane aerial data across regions and instruments.
Section 3.A; the dataset is built from NOAA imagery, so applicability to other imagery sources is asserted but not measured.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Post-Hurricane Debris Segmentation Using Fine-Tuned Foundational Vision Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RJ7QH4PL

@misc{pith2026250412542,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Post-Hurricane Debris Segmentation Using Fine-Tuned Foundational Vision Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RJ7QH4PL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.12542}
}

read the original abstract

Timely and accurate detection of hurricane debris is critical for effective disaster response and community resilience. While post-disaster aerial imagery is readily available, robust debris segmentation solutions applicable across multiple disaster regions remain limited. Developing a generalized solution is challenging due to varying environmental and imaging conditions that alter debris' visual signatures across different regions, further compounded by the scarcity of training data. This study addresses these challenges by fine-tuning pre-trained foundational vision models, achieving robust performance with a relatively small, high-quality dataset. Specifically, this work introduces an open-source dataset comprising approximately 1,200 manually annotated aerial RGB images from Hurricanes Ian, Ida, and Ike. To mitigate human biases and enhance data quality, labels from multiple annotators are strategically aggregated and visual prompt engineering is employed. The resulting fine-tuned model, named fCLIPSeg, achieves a Dice score of 0.70 on data from Hurricane Ida -- a disaster event entirely excluded during training -- with virtually no false positives in debris-free areas. This work presents the first event-agnostic debris segmentation model requiring only standard RGB imagery during deployment, making it well-suited for rapid, large-scale post-disaster impact assessments and recovery planning.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.12542 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Three hurricane-affected regions used in this research. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Debris segmentation is challenging – even humans [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Overview of our debris segmentation model, named [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Visual comparison of debris segmentation models. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Demonstration model deployment over large-scale [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Demonstration of segmentation generalizability. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

[1]

NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information. U.s. billion-dollar weather and climate disasters. Accessed: 2025-03-01, https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/ billions,

work page 2025
[9]

A framework to enhance disaster debris estimation with ai and aerial photogrammetry

Chih-Shen Cheng, Linchao Luo, Sean Murphy, Yu-Chen Lee, and Fernanda Leite. A framework to enhance disaster debris estimation with ai and aerial photogrammetry. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction , 107:104468, 2024a. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104468. Zeyad Emam, Andrew Kondrich, Sasha Harrison, Felix Lau, Yushi Wang, Aerin Kim, and Elliot Br...

arXiv
[10]

Jianyi Wang, Zongsheng Yue, Shangchen Zhou, Kelvin C

Accessed: 2025-01-17. Jianyi Wang, Zongsheng Yue, Shangchen Zhou, Kelvin C. K. Chan, and Chen Change Loy. Exploiting Diffusion Prior for Real-World Image Super-Resolution, November

work page 2025
[11]

doi: 10.1016/j.jag.2023.103540

ISSN 1569-8432. doi: 10.1016/j.jag.2023.103540. Fei Pan, Sangryul Jeon, Brian Wang, Frank Mckenna, and Stella X. Yu. Zero-shot Building Attribute Extraction from Large-Scale Vision and Language Models,

arXiv 2023
[12]

arXiv | 11 Chih-Shen Cheng, Amir Behzadan, and Arash Noshadravan

Amini et al. arXiv | 11 Chih-Shen Cheng, Amir Behzadan, and Arash Noshadravan. A post-hurricane building debris estimation workflow enabled by uncertainty-aware ai and crowdsourcing. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 112:104785, 2024b. doi: 10.1016/ j.ijdrr.2024.104785. Chuanmin Hu. Remote detection of marine debris using satellite observa...

arXiv
[13]

doi: 10.1016/j.rse

ISSN 0034-4257. doi: 10.1016/j.rse. 2021.112414. Lauren Biermann, Daniel Clewley, Victor Martinez-Vicente, and Konstantinos Topouzelis. Finding Plastic Patches in Coastal Waters using Optical Satellite Data. Scientific Reports , 10 (1):5364, December

arXiv 2021
[15]

doi: 10.3390/w13182553

ISSN 2073-4441. doi: 10.3390/w13182553. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Lesson 2: Debris management plan overview,

work page doi:10.3390/w13182553
[16]

Alican Karaer, Mehmet Baran Ulak, Tarek Abichou, Reza Arghandeh, and Eren Erman Ozguven

Accessed: 2025- 01-17. Alican Karaer, Mehmet Baran Ulak, Tarek Abichou, Reza Arghandeh, and Eren Erman Ozguven. Post-Hurricane Vege- tative Debris Assessment Using Spectral Indices Derived from Satellite Imagery. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board , 2675(12):504–523, De- cember

work page 2025

Show all 24 references

[17]

doi: 10.1177/ 03611981211029921

ISSN 0361-1981, 2169-4052. doi: 10.1177/ 03611981211029921. Jiyeon Kim, Sorin C. Popescu, Roel R. Lopez, X. Ben Wu, and Nova J. Silvy. Assessing hurricane impact on vegetation and endangered deer habitat using airborne lidar and multispec- tral images. Global Ecology and Conse...

1981
[19]

doi: 10.3390/jmse12040668

ISSN 2077-1312. doi: 10.3390/jmse12040668. Shasha Jiang and Carol J. Friedland. Automatic urban debris zone extraction from post-hurricane very high-resolution satel- lite and aerial imagery. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 7(3):933–952, May

doi
[22]

Prannay Khosla, Piotr Teterwak, Chen Wang, Aaron Sarna, Y on- glong Tian, Phillip Isola, Aaron Maschinot, Ce Liu, and Dilip Krishnan

Accessed: 2025-01-17. Prannay Khosla, Piotr Teterwak, Chen Wang, Aaron Sarna, Y on- glong Tian, Phillip Isola, Aaron Maschinot, Ce Liu, and Dilip Krishnan. Supervised contrastive learning. Advances in neu- ral information processing systems, 33:18661–18673,

2025
[23]

Decoupled weight decay regularization

I Loshchilov. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101,

arXiv
[24]

Optimizing the dice score and jaccard index for medical image segmentation: Theory & practice

Jeroen Bertels, Tom Eelbode, Maxim Berman, Dirk Van- dermeulen, Frederik Maes, Raf Bisschops, and Matthew Blaschko. Optimizing the dice score and jaccard index for medical image segmentation: Theory & practice. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.01685,

1911 arXiv
[2008]

Observations of fema’s debris monitoring efforts for hurri- cane irma

Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General. Observations of fema’s debris monitoring efforts for hurri- cane irma. OIG-18-85 Report, Accessed: 2025-03-01,

2025
[2016]

doi: 10.1080/19475705.2014.1003417

ISSN 1947-5705, 1947-5713. doi: 10.1080/19475705.2014.1003417. Ellen M. Rathje, Clint Dawson, Jamie E. Padgett, Jean-Paul Pinelli, Dan Stanzione, Ashley Adair, Pedro Arduino, Scott J. Brandenberg, Tim Cockerill, Charlie Dey, Maria Esteva, Fred L. Haan, Matthew Hanlon, Ahsan Ka...

1947
[2017]

1527-6996.0000246

doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)NH. 1527-6996.0000246. OCM Partners. 2022 USACE FEMA NCMP Phase One Natural Color 8 Bit Imagery: Post Hurricane Ian, FL from 2010-06-15 to 2010-08-15,

2022
[2018]

Kooshan Amini and Jamie E

URL: https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/ files/assets/Mga/2018/oig-18-85-sep18.pdf . Kooshan Amini and Jamie E. Padgett. Probabilistic risk assess- ment of hurricane-induced debris impacts on coastal trans- portation infrastructure. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, ...

2018
[2019]

doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/mice. 12410. Navid Nickdoost, Hiba Jalloul, and Juyeong Choi. An integrated framework for temporary disaster debris management sites selection and debris collection logistics planning using geo- graphic information systems and agent-based modeling....

doi
[2020]

doi: 10.1038/ s41598-020-62298-z

ISSN 2045-2322. doi: 10.1038/ s41598-020-62298-z . Ali Jamali and Masoud Mahdianpari. A Cloud-Based Framework for Large-Scale Monitoring of Ocean Plastics Using Multi- Spectral Satellite Imagery and Generative Adversarial Net- work. Water, 13(18):2553, September
[2021]

doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ mice.12658. NOAA. National geodetic survey damage assessment imagery (hurricane michael). Accessed: 2025-03-01, https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/news/oct18/ michael-storm-imagery.html,

2025
[2022]

doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103215

ISSN 22124209. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103215. Chih-Shen Cheng, Amir H. Behzadan, and Arash Noshadravan. Deep learning for post-hurricane aerial damage assessment of buildings. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engi- neering, 36(6):695–710,

2022
[2023]

doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2023.109579

ISSN 09518320. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2023.109579. Zhaojing Wang, Hao Hu, Mengyang Guo, and Jie Gong. Opti- mization of temporary debris management site selection and site service regions for enhancing postdisaster debris removal operations. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructur...

2023
[2024]

doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2024

ISSN 23519894. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2024. e03007. Leanne Hauptman, Diana Mitsova, and Tiffany Roberts Briggs. Hurricane Ian Damage Assessment Using Aerial Imagery and LiDAR: A Case Study of Estero Island, Florida. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 12(4):668, April

2024 doi
[2025]

DOI: 10.25921/stkw-7w73. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Hurricane kat- rina: Continuing debris removal and disposal issues. Tech- nical Report GAO-08-985R, U.S. Government Accountability Office,

doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information. U.s. billion-dollar weather and climate disasters. Accessed: 2025-03-01, https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/ billions,

work page 2025

[2] [9]

A framework to enhance disaster debris estimation with ai and aerial photogrammetry

Chih-Shen Cheng, Linchao Luo, Sean Murphy, Yu-Chen Lee, and Fernanda Leite. A framework to enhance disaster debris estimation with ai and aerial photogrammetry. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction , 107:104468, 2024a. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104468. Zeyad Emam, Andrew Kondrich, Sasha Harrison, Felix Lau, Yushi Wang, Aerin Kim, and Elliot Br...

arXiv

[3] [10]

Jianyi Wang, Zongsheng Yue, Shangchen Zhou, Kelvin C

Accessed: 2025-01-17. Jianyi Wang, Zongsheng Yue, Shangchen Zhou, Kelvin C. K. Chan, and Chen Change Loy. Exploiting Diffusion Prior for Real-World Image Super-Resolution, November

work page 2025

[4] [11]

doi: 10.1016/j.jag.2023.103540

ISSN 1569-8432. doi: 10.1016/j.jag.2023.103540. Fei Pan, Sangryul Jeon, Brian Wang, Frank Mckenna, and Stella X. Yu. Zero-shot Building Attribute Extraction from Large-Scale Vision and Language Models,

arXiv 2023

[5] [12]

arXiv | 11 Chih-Shen Cheng, Amir Behzadan, and Arash Noshadravan

Amini et al. arXiv | 11 Chih-Shen Cheng, Amir Behzadan, and Arash Noshadravan. A post-hurricane building debris estimation workflow enabled by uncertainty-aware ai and crowdsourcing. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 112:104785, 2024b. doi: 10.1016/ j.ijdrr.2024.104785. Chuanmin Hu. Remote detection of marine debris using satellite observa...

arXiv

[6] [13]

doi: 10.1016/j.rse

ISSN 0034-4257. doi: 10.1016/j.rse. 2021.112414. Lauren Biermann, Daniel Clewley, Victor Martinez-Vicente, and Konstantinos Topouzelis. Finding Plastic Patches in Coastal Waters using Optical Satellite Data. Scientific Reports , 10 (1):5364, December

arXiv 2021

[7] [15]

doi: 10.3390/w13182553

ISSN 2073-4441. doi: 10.3390/w13182553. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Lesson 2: Debris management plan overview,

work page doi:10.3390/w13182553

[8] [16]

Alican Karaer, Mehmet Baran Ulak, Tarek Abichou, Reza Arghandeh, and Eren Erman Ozguven

Accessed: 2025- 01-17. Alican Karaer, Mehmet Baran Ulak, Tarek Abichou, Reza Arghandeh, and Eren Erman Ozguven. Post-Hurricane Vege- tative Debris Assessment Using Spectral Indices Derived from Satellite Imagery. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board , 2675(12):504–523, De- cember

work page 2025