Papers
arxiv:2511.01990

Assessing the value of Geo-Foundational Models for Flood Inundation Mapping: Benchmarking models for Sentinel-1, Sentinel-2, and Planetscope for end-users

Published on Nov 3
Authors:
,
,

Abstract

Geo-Foundational Models (GFMs) demonstrate competitive performance in flood inundation mapping with slight improvements over traditional models like U-Net, offering better computational efficiency and fewer labeling efforts.

AI-generated summary

Geo-Foundational Models (GFMs) enable fast and reliable extraction of spatiotemporal information from satellite imagery, improving flood inundation mapping by leveraging location and time embeddings. Despite their potential, it remains unclear whether GFMs outperform traditional models like U-Net. A systematic comparison across sensors and data availability scenarios is still lacking, which is an essential step to guide end-users in model selection. To address this, we evaluate three GFMs, Prithvi 2.0, Clay V1.5, DOFA, and UViT (a Prithvi variant), against TransNorm, U-Net, and Attention U-Net using PlanetScope, Sentinel-1, and Sentinel-2. We observe competitive performance among all GFMs, with only 2-5% variation between the best and worst models across sensors. Clay outperforms others on PlanetScope (0.79 mIoU) and Sentinel-2 (0.70), while Prithvi leads on Sentinel-1 (0.57). In leave-one-region-out cross-validation across five regions, Clay shows slightly better performance across all sensors (mIoU: 0.72(0.04), 0.66(0.07), 0.51(0.08)) compared to Prithvi (0.70(0.05), 0.64(0.09), 0.49(0.13)) and DOFA (0.67(0.07), 0.64(0.04), 0.49(0.09)) for PlanetScope, Sentinel-2, and Sentinel-1, respectively. Across all 19 sites, leave-one-region-out cross-validation reveals a 4% improvement by Clay compared to U-Net. Visual inspection highlights Clay's superior ability to retain fine details. Few-shot experiments show Clay achieves 0.64 mIoU on PlanetScope with just five training images, outperforming Prithvi (0.24) and DOFA (0.35). In terms of computational time, Clay is a better choice due to its smaller model size (26M parameters), making it ~3x faster than Prithvi (650M) and 2x faster than DOFA (410M). Contrary to previous findings, our results suggest GFMs offer small to moderate improvements in flood mapping accuracy at lower computational cost and labeling effort compared to traditional U-Net.

Community

Sign up or log in to comment

Models citing this paper 0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2511.01990 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper 0

No dataset linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2511.01990 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.

Spaces citing this paper 0

No Space linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2511.01990 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.

Collections including this paper 0

No Collection including this paper

Add this paper to a collection to link it from this page.