Robust Building Damage Detection in Cross-Disaster Settings Using Domain Adaptation

Asmae Mouradi, Shruti Kshirsagar · Mar 16, 2026 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Rapid structural damage assessment from remote sensing imagery is essential for timely disaster response. Within human-machine systems (HMS) for disaster management, automated damage detection provides decision-makers with actionable situational awareness. However, models trained on multi-disaster benchmarks often underperform in unseen geographic regions due to domain shift - a distributional mismatch between training and deployment data that undermines human trust in automated assessments. We explore a two-stage ensemble approach using supervised domain adaptation (SDA) for building damage classification across four severity classes. The pipeline adapts the xView2 first-place method to the Ida-BD dataset using SDA and systematically investigates the effect of individual augmentation components on classification performance. Comprehensive ablation experiments on the unseen Ida-BD test split demonstrate that SDA is indispensable: removing it causes damage detection to fail entirely. Our pipeline achieves the most robust performance using SDA with unsharp-enhanced RGB input, attaining a Macro-F1 of 0.5552. These results underscore the critical role of domain adaptation in building trustworthy automated damage assessment modules for HMS-integrated disaster response.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 35%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.