The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Assessment of a new GeoAI foundation model for flood inundation mapping
Open accessAbstract
Vision foundation models are a new frontier in Geospatial Artificial Intelligence (GeoAI), an interdisciplinary research area that applies and extends AI for geospatial problem solving and geographic knowledge discovery, because of their potential to enable powerful image analysis by learning and extracting important image features from vast amounts of geospatial data. This paper evaluates the performance of the first-of-its-kind geospatial foundation model, IBM-NASA's Prithvi, to support a crucial geospatial analysis task: flood inundation mapping. This model is compared with convolutional neural network and vision transformer-based architectures in terms of mapping accuracy for flooded areas. A benchmark dataset, Sen1Floods11, is used in the experiments, and the models' predictability, generalizability, and transferability are evaluated based on both a test dataset and a dataset that is completely unseen by the model. Results show the good transferability of the Prithvi model, highlighting its performance advantages in segmenting flooded areas in previously unseen regions. The findings also indicate areas for improvement for the Prithvi model in terms of adopting multi-scale representation learning, developing more end-to-end pipelines for high-level image analysis tasks, and offering more flexibility in terms of input data bands.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Prithvi strongly outperforms the U-Net on data from unseen geographical regions, by 8.6% in IoU on the water class.
“However, Prithvi strongly outperforms the U-Net on data from unseen geographical regions (i.e., 8.6% in the IoU on the water class).”
From Foundation Models for Generalist Geospatial Artificial Intelligence (2023) · cites this paper as [63]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Foundation Models for Generalist Geospatial Artificial Intelligence
Jakubik, J., Roy, S., Phillips, C. E., Fraccaro, P., Godwin, D., Zadrozny, B., Szwarcman, D., Gomes, C., Nyirjesy, G., Edwards, B., et al. (2023) · arXiv · Cited by 157
“However, we see potential for improvement in the performance of data from the same distribution, which we explore by, e.g., leveraging multi-scale features (see also [63]).”
Influential
Metadata
- Authors
- Li, W., Lee, H., Wang, S., Hsu, C.-Y., & Arundel, S. T.
- Affiliations
- Arizona State University (US)
- United States Geological Survey (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- Pages
- 102-109
- arXiv
- 2309.14500
- OpenAlex
- W4388834734
- Cited by
- 40
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 15
- FWCI
- 45.08
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- ACM SIGSPATIAL International Workshop on AI for Geographic Knowledge Discovery (GeoAI) (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (2120943, 2230034, 1853864)
- Universitas Brawijaya (2120943)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Flood Risk Assessment and Management
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Remote-Sensing Image Classification
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
- Keywords
- flood inundation mapping, geospatial foundation models, vision foundation models, flood segmentation, transferability, model generalization, convolutional neural networks, vision transformer, multi-scale representation learning, synthetic satellite imagery
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review