Exploiting ConvNet Diversity for Flooding Identification
Keiller Nogueira1 , Samuel G. Fadel2 , Ícaro C. Dourado2 , Rafael de O. Werneck2 , Javier A. V.
Muñoz2 , Otávio A. B. Penatti3 , Rodrigo T. Calumby4 , Lin Tzy Li2,3 , Jefersson A. dos
Santos1 , Ricardo da S. Torres2

arXiv:1711.03564v1 [] 9 Nov 2017

1

Departamento de Ciência da Computação, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)
{keiller.nogueira,jefersson}@dcc.ufmg.br
2
Institute of Computing, University of Campinas (Unicamp)
{samuel.fadel,icaro.dourado,rafael.werneck,lintzyli,rtorres}@ic.unicamp.br
3
Advanced Technologies Group, SAMSUNG Research Institute
o.penatti@samsung.com
4
Department of Exact Sciences, University of Feira de Santana (UEFS)
rtcalumby@ecomp.uefs.br
November 13, 2017
Abstract
Flooding is the world’s most costly type of natural disaster in terms of both economic losses and
human causalities. A first and essential procedure towards flood monitoring is based on identifying
the area most vulnerable to flooding, which gives authorities relevant regions to focus. In this
work, we propose several methods to perform flooding identification in high-resolution remote
sensing images using deep learning. Specifically, some proposed techniques are based upon unique
networks, such as dilated and deconvolutional ones, while other was conceived to exploit diversity of
distinct networks in order to extract the maximum performance of each classifier. Evaluation of the
proposed algorithms were conducted in a high-resolution remote sensing dataset. Results show that
the proposed algorithms outperformed several state-of-the-art baselines, providing improvements
ranging from 1 to 4% in terms of the Jaccard Index.

Keywords: Flooding identification, Natural disaster, Remote Sensing, Inundation, MediaEval,
Satellites.

1

Introduction

Natural disaster monitoring is a fundamental task to create prevention strategies, as well as to help
authorities to act in the control of damages, coordinate rescues, and help victims. Among all kinds
of natural hazards, flooding is possibly the most extensive and devastating one, destroying buildings,
roads, bridges; tearing out trees; devastating agriculture; causing mudslides; and threatening human
lives [1]. All these consequences make such events to be considered as the world’s most costly type of
natural disaster in terms of both economic losses and human causalities as pointed out by the disaster
statistical review released every year by the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters [2].
Some of these disasters happen annually [3], for example in humid tropics and subtropical climates,
where river flooding is a recurrent natural phenomenon due to excessive rain within a short period
of time. However, other events may occur atypically [4], which is the case of flooding caused by
hurricanes, such as the recent triple hurricanes (e.g., Harvey, Maria, and Irma) that brought massive
flooding in several countries [5].
Although extremely important, floods are difficult to monitor, because they are highly dependent
on several local conditions, such as precipitation, slope of terrain, drainage network, protective structures, and land cover [6]. A first and essential step towards such monitoring is based on identifying
1

areas most vulnerable to flooding, helping authorities to focus on such regions while monitoring inundations. Remotely sensed data play a crucial role in identifying such areas, since it allows the capture
of whole inundated regions during a flooding event, allowing a better understanding of what and how
it is flooded. Although there are lots of works [7,8] performing flooding detection using remote sensing
data integrated with elevation maps in order to augment the amount and type of information available
for an efficient flood management, as far as we know, there are no works that focus on identifying
flooding areas using only remote sensing data. Because of the importance of such task and the lack of
works dealing with it, a subtask (called Flood-Detection in Satellite Images) of the 2017 Multimedia
Satellite Task [9], which was part of the traditional MediaEval Benchmark, was proposed to leverage
the development of methods for identifying flooding events in high-resolution remote sensing images.
In this paper, we present our proposed methods, which won the aforementioned task, to automatic
identify flooding areas in high-resolution remote sensing images using deep learning paradigm. Deep
learning [10], commonly represented as multi-layered neural networks, can learn simultaneously the
features and the classifiers. In other words, during the training process, a deep neural network is able
to learn both the features and the classifier in a unified manner, adjusting itself to better represent
the characteristics of the data and their labels. Among all deep learning-based networks, a specific
type, called Convolutional (Neural) Networks, ConvNets or CNNs [10], is the most popular for learning
visual features in computer vision applications, including remote sensing [11,12]. This type of network
relies on the natural stationary property of an image, i.e., the statistics of one part of the image are
assumed to be the same as those of any other part. Furthermore, deep ConvNets can be considered
as an inherently multiscale approach since they usually obtain different levels of abstraction for the
data, ranging from local low-level information in the initial layers (e.g., corners and edges), to more
semantic descriptors, mid-level information (e.g., object parts) in intermediate layers, and high-level
information (e.g., whole objects) in the final layers.
We introduce several approaches to identify flooding areas of remote sensing images exploiting
the advantages of ConvNets. Some methods are based uniquely on networks with distinct properties,
including: (i) dilated convolutions [13], which, unlike standard ConvNets, process the input without
downsampling it, and (ii) deconvolution layers, such as SegNet [14], in which a coarse feature map is
upsampled outputting a dense map with the same resolution of the original image. Another approach
exploits the diversity of distinct networks in order to extract the maximum performance of each
classifier. In summary, the contributions of the paper are: (i) novel ConvNet architectures specialized
in identifying flooding areas; and (ii) a new strategy to exploit network diversity for inundation
identification. Obtained results of the proposed methods represent the state of the art, in terms of the
Jaccard Index, in a remote-sensing-based flooding detection task. These results made us the winner
of the Flood-Detection in Satellite Images, a subtask of 2017 Multimedia Satellite Task [9].

2

Proposed Methods

In this section, we present the proposed techniques to perform flooding identification. The first
approaches (Section 2.1) are based upon new and specific architectures to handle such important
task. The other method (Section 2.2) was conceived to better combine the diversity of distinct, but
complementary networks.

2.1

Network Architectures

All networks conceived specifically for flooding identification are based on ConvNets and have architectures illustrated in Figure 1. Some use dilated convolutions while others are based on deconvolutional
networks.
Specifically, two architectures are based on the concept of dilated convolutions [13]. In these layers,
the convolution filter is expanded by dilation rate. Given this rate, the weights are placed far away at
given intervals and the kernel size increases by allowing gaps (or “holes”) inside their filters. Therefore,
networks composed of these layers allow the receptive field to expand but preserving the resolution,
i.e., without downsampling the input data. This procedure represents a great advantage in terms

2

of computational processing, as well as in terms of learning, since internal feature maps do not lose
resolution (and maybe useful information).
The first architecture, presented in Figure 1a, is composed of seven layers: six dilated convolutions
(that are responsible for learning the patterns of the input images) and a final 1 × 1 convolution
layer, which is responsible for identifying the flooding areas. There are no pooling or normalization
operations inside this network. Specifically, the first two convolutions have 5 × 5 filters with dilation
rate 1. The following two convolutions have 4 × 4 filters and rate 2 while the last two convolutions
have smaller filters (3 × 3) with 4 dilation rate.
The second proposed network, presented in Figure 1b, is also based on dilated convolution layers.
This network shares the same architecture of the first one, except for the fact that there are additional
max-pooling layers between each dilated convolutions layer. Each pooling has 3 × 3 kernel and stride
of 1. Although pooling usually reduces the resolution of the input data, in this case, it also preserves
the resolution because of zero padding used in the input. The core idea of this network is to conserve
the benefits of dilated convolutional layers but adding known advantages of pooling layers, such as
invariance to small rotations and translations, as well as the preservation of the most important
features.
inputDimage
overlapping
patches

DilatedDConvolutionD1

DilatedDConvolutionD2

KernelD=D5x5
ReLUs =D64
Dilatation RateD=D1

Kernel =D5x5
ReLUsD=D64
Dilatation RateD=D1

Kernel =D4x4
ReLUsD=D128
Dilatation RateD=D2

2Dclasses:
flooding
non-flooding

KernelD=D3x3
ReLUsD=D256
Dilatation RateD=D4

KernelD=D3x3
ReLUs =D256
Dilatation Rate =D4

Kernel =D4x4
ReLUs =D128
Dilatation Rate =D2

ClassificationDLayer

DilatedDConvolutionD6

...

DilatedDConvolutionD5

DilatedDConvolutionD3

DilatedDConvolutionD4

predictedDimage

(a) Dilated ConvNet #1
inputDimage
overlapping
patches

...

Dilated
ConvolutionD1
KernelD=D5x5
ReLUs =D64
Dilatation
RateD=D1

2Dclasses:
flooding
non-flooding

KernelD=D3x3
StrideD=D1x1

Classification
Layer

Max-PoolingD6

Max-PoolingD1
KernelD=D3x3
StrideD=D1x1

KernelD=D3x3
ReLUs =D256
Dilatation
Rate =D4
Dilated
ConvolutionD6

Dilated
ConvolutionD2
KernelD=D5x5
ReLUs =D64
Dilatation
RateD=D1

KernelD=D3x3
StrideD=D1x1
Max-PoolingD5

Max-PoolingD2
KernelD=D3x3
StrideD=D1x1

KernelD=D3x3
ReLUs =D256
Dilatation
Rate =D4
Dilated
ConvolutionD5

Dilated
ConvolutionD3
Kernel =D4x4
ReLUsD=D128
Dilatation
RateD=D2

KernelD=D3x3
StrideD=D1x1
Max-PoolingD4

Max-PoolingD3
KernelD=D3x3
StrideD=D1x1

Kernel =D4x4
ReLUsD=D128
Dilatation
RateD=D2
Dilated
ConvolutionD4

predictedDimage

(b) Dilated ConvNet #2
inputyimage
overlapping
patches

Convolutiony1

Max-Poolingy1

Convolutiony2

Max-Poolingy2

Convolutiony3

Max-Poolingy3

...

Kernely=y5x5
ReLUs =y64

Kernely=y2x2
Stridey=y2x2

Kernely=y3x3
ReLUs =y128

Kernely=y2x2
Stridey=y2x2

Kernely=y3x3
ReLUs =y256

Kernely=y2x2
Stridey=y2x2

2yclasses:
flooding
non-flooding

Kernely=y5x5
ReLUs =y64

Kernely=y2x2
ReLUsy=y64
Stridey=y2x2

Kernely=y3x3
ReLUs =y64

Kernely=y2x2
ReLUsy=y64
Stridey=y2x2

Kernely=y3x3
ReLUs =y128

Kernely=y2x2
ReLUsy=y128
Stridey=y2x2

Classification
Layer

Convolutiony6

Deconvolutiony3

Convolutiony5

Deconvolutiony2

Convolutiony4

Deconvolutiony1

predictedyimage

(c) Deconvolution ConvNet #1
inputMimage
overlapping
patches

ConvolutionM1

Max-PoolingM1

ConvolutionM2

Max-PoolingM2

ConvolutionM3

Max-PoolingM3

...

KernelM=M4x4
ReLUs =M64

KernelM=M2x2
StrideM=M2x2

KernelM=M4x4
ReLUs =M128

KernelM=M2x2
StrideM=M2x2

KernelM=M3x3
ReLUs =M256

KernelM=M2x2
StrideM=M2x2

2Mclasses:
flooding
non-flooding

KernelM=M3x3
ReLUs =M64

KernelM=M3x3
ReLUsM=M64
StrideM=M2x2

KernelM=M4x4
ReLUs =M128

KernelM=M3x3
ReLUsM=M128
StrideM=M2x2

KernelM=M3x3
ReLUs =M128

KernelM=M3x3
ReLUsM=M256
StrideM=M1x1

Classification
Layer

ConvolutionM6

DeconvolutionM3

ConvolutionM5

DeconvolutionM2

ConvolutionM4

DeconvolutionM1

predictedMimage

(d) Deconvolution ConvNet #2

Figure 1: ConvNet architectures proposed in this work.
The two remaining networks are based on deconvolutional networks [14]. This type of network has
two modules: the first receives input images, learns the visual features by using standard convolution
and pooling layers, and outputs a coarse feature map while the second receives this map as input,
3

learns to upsample these features by using several deconvolution layers, and outputs a dense prediction
map with the same resolution of the original image. Both modules work together without distinction
and can be trained end-to-end by using standard feedforward and backpropagation algorithms.
The two architectures, presented in Figures 1c and 1d, are based on the solution discussed in [14].
The encoder of both is based on three standard convolution layers intercalated with max-pooling
operations. The only difference is the kernel of the convolutions, i.e., while the first layer uses a larger
kernel in the first layer (in order to learn more information about flooding regions directly from the
input image), the other one bets on similar filter sizes, which should extract the same amount of
information in all layers resulting in a balanced learning of the flooding patterns. The deconvolutional
part has similar architecture with the same number of layers (three deconvolutional ones intercalated
with standard convolutions) differing only in the size of deconvolutional and convolutional kernels.
The premise was conserved, i.e., while the first deconvolutional network bets on larger kernel, the
second tries to use similar filter sizes.

2.2

Combination

As previously explained, we also proposed another strategy to solve the flooding detection task, which
aims to exploit the diversity of distinct ConvNets. The main premise of the proposed method is that the
previous presented ConvNets learn and produce distinct outcomes, which are dense prediction maps.
This difference should make ConvNets complementary to each other. Therefore, a clever combination
of such outcomes should improve the final prediction map if compared with the ConvNets individual
results.We propose a combination method based upon Support Vector Machines (SVM).
DistinctFConvNets
TrainedFwithFDifferentFData
TestFImage

DilatedNetF#1

ConcatenatedFPredictions
FinalFPrediction

DilatedNetF#2

...

LinearFSVM

DeconvNetF#1
DeconvNetF#2

Figure 2: Pipeline for the prediction phase of the proposed combination approach.
The proposed method is divided into three main steps: (i) extraction: In this phase, an image
is processed by all proposed network, which produce distinct outcomes (i.e., different probability or
prediction maps). All these maps (that have the same resolution of the original input image) are then
concatenated creating a feature vector that, in fact, represents the input image. (ii) learning: In this
step, the SVM receives the aforementioned feature vector as well as the ground-truth flooding map
for all training data. Then, it independently process each pixel of these images, learning which and
when each classifier is better; and (iii) prediction: This final step receives feature vectors of testing
images and, using the trained SVM, outputs the improved prediction map for each test image. This
final step is illustrated in Figure 2.

3

Experiments

In this section, we present the experimental setup. Also, we present and discuss the obtained results
of the proposed methods comparing them with the best performing teams of the Flood-Detection in
Satellite Images subtask of the 2017 Multimedia Satellite Task.

4

3.1

Dataset

(a) Location 1

(b) Location 2

(c) Location 3

(d) Location 4

(e) Location 5

(f) Location 6

Figure 3: Examples of patches for all locations of the training set with its respective ground-truth, in
which white regions refer to flooded area and black ones correspond to background.
The dataset consists of satellite image patches collected from eight different flooding events June 1st,
2016 to May 1st, 2017. Each image patch is composed of four bands (red, green, blue, and near
infrared bands) and has resolution of 320 × 320 pixels, with a ground-sample distance (GSD) of 3.7
meters and an orthorectified pixel size of 3 meters [9].
The training set is composed of 462 image patches unevenly extracted from six locations. Among
these images, 92 (20%) were employed as internal validation set to evaluate the proposed algorithms
while the remaining 370 images were used to train the proposed methods. Some examples of image
patches for each of these locations are presented in Figure 3. Two test sets were released in this
dataset: the Same Locations test set contains 216 unseen patches unevenly extracted from the same
region presented in the training set, while the New Locations test set contains 58 unseen patches
extracted from a region not present in the training set. Figure 4 presents some examples of both test
sets. It is important to highlight that, until the submission of this current paper, ground-truth of the
test sets were not released by the organization of the competition.

5

(a) Location 1

(b) Location 2

(e) Location 5

(c) Location 3

(f) Location 6

(d) Location 4

(g) New Location

Figure 4: Examples of patches for both test sets.

3.2

Experimental Evaluation

In order to assess the performance of generated segmentation masks for flooded areas in the satellite
image patches, the intersection-over-union metric (also known as Jaccard Index), was used. The
metric measures the accuracy for the pixelwise classification, and as defined as IoU = (T P +FT PP +F N ) ,
where T P , F P , and F N are the numbers of true positive, false positive, and false negative pixels,
respectively, determined over the whole test set.

3.3

Experimental Protocol

First, we trained all ConvNets (presented in Section 2.1) using overlapping patches of size 25 × 25
extracted from all training images (independent of the location). In the prediction phase, we also
extracted overlapping patches with the same resolution from the testing images and averaged the
probabilities outputted by the network. Among all networks, the best one (in our internal validation
set) is reported as ConvNet 25 × 25.
Another proposed method relied on training the aforementioned ConvNets using larger overlapping
patches, with 50 × 50 pixels, also extracted from all training images. The motivation behind this
strategy is based on the entire context that could be extract from the input patches and improve
the learning process. The prediction phase is similar to the previous strategy. Considering this
configuration, the best network (in our internal validation set) is referred to in the next section as
ConvNet 50 × 50.
The Location ConvNets strategy is based on the idea of creating specialized ConvNets for each
flooding event. Since the dataset has six distinct flooding event locations, we propose to train a
specific Dilated ConvNet #1 (using patches of 25 × 25) for each location. The prediction is similar
to the other proposed protocols, except for the fact that, in this case, each ConvNet was used in its
respective location. For the New Locations test set, we combined the outcomes extracted from each
ConvNet (trained specifically for each location) using a linear SVM, as proposed in Section 2.2.
The Fusion-SVM strategy expands above idea. Differently from previous scheme, in this procedure, an SVM is used to create prediction maps for both test sets (and not only for the New
Locations test set). Based on the premise that distinct ConvNets (trained using different input data)
produce distinct (and possible complementary) outcomes, we propose to combine the predictions extracted from all above ConvNets using a linear SVM, as presented in Section 2.2. In this way, the
SVM should be able to learn when and how these networks complement each other in order to improve
6

the final performance. Specifically, the SVM receives as input concatenated probabilities extracted
from all previously trained ConvNets, which include: (i) all four ConvNets presented in Section 2.1
trained with overlapping 25 × 25 patches, (ii) all four networks introduced in Section 2.1 trained with
overlapping 50 × 50 patches, and (iii) six Dilated ConvNet #1 trained specifically for each location of
the training set.
Another strategy relied on exploiting the diversity of distinct ConvNets by combining all outcomes
of previous methods using a majority voting scheme, which is referred to in following section as
Fusion-MV.
It is important to emphasize that all proposed methods were created using TensorFlow framework
and will have code released upon the acceptance of this paper. When training, all the aforementioned
protocol used the same hyper-parameters, i.e., learning rate, weight decay, momentum and number of
epochs as 0.01, 0.0005, 0.9 and 20, respectively.

3.4

Baselines

The baselines evaluated in this work were, in fact, the best performing approaches proposed for the
Flood-Detection in Satellite Images subtask of the 2017 Multimedia Satellite Task. An overview of
the such methods (which includes state-of-the-art methods, such as Generative Adversarial, Deconvolutional and Fully Convolutional Networks) are presented in Table 1.

3.5

Results and Discussion

All results for the test sets are presented in Table 1. These are the official results released by the
Mediaeval since no ground-truth for the test set was released yet. Also, it is worth mentioning that,
for the two strategies of learning ConvNets using all available training data (but with distinct patch
size), the Dilated ConvNet #1 yielded the best results among all experimented networks. Therefore,
these were the ones submitted to the competition as well as reported in this work as ConvNet 25 × 25
and ConvNet 50 × 50.
For both test sets, the best solution was obtained by combining the probabilities of all trained
ConvNets using a Linear SVM. This technique yielded state-of-the-art results in both test set, outperforming all baselines by, at least, 4% in the Same Locations test set and 1% in the New Locations
test set (in terms of Jaccard Index). Some samples of this obtained results are presented in Figure 5.
For the Same Locations test set, training a network for each location (Location ConvNets) or
training a ConvNet with all available data (ConvNet 25 × 25) achieved the same result. This may
indicate that the proposed architecture can, in fact, extract and interpret all feasible information from
the whole data, which is a great advantage given that it reduces the number of networks to train and,
consequently, the processing time. This conclusion does not hold for the New Locations test set. In
this set, training a specific network for each location (Location ConvNets) achieved higher performance
(aside the Fusion-SVM strategy) when compared to unique networks trained with the whole training
set (such as ConvNet 25 × 25 and ConvNet 50 × 50). This indicates that specific Location Network
can learn details that may not be useful for classification of a known image, but that is important for
unseen data, which is the case.
Another relevant outcome is that increasing the size of the input patch (ConvNet 50×50) decreases
the final result, a conclusion that holds for both datasets. We believe that this is because of the amount
of training patches generated in each case. More specifically, a large amount of data may be used for
training with smaller patch sizes while large patches means less data to train. This corroborates with
the fact that deep learning really needs a large amount of labeled data to train [10].
Finally, for both sets, the worst result was obtained using the majority voting scheme. This may
be justified by the fact that Majority Voting is not so robust to aggregate information from multiple
networks, when they disagree in the classification. This fact can be overcome by using a machine
learning technique to capture about the opinions of the ConvNets.

7

Table 1: IoU (%) results of the proposed method and baselines for both test sets. Higher values of
IoU indicates better performance.
Methods

Test Set

Overview

Same Locations
WISC [15]

NDVI plus SVM-RBF
K-Means to cluster and classify

80
81

83
77

CERTH-ITI [16]

Mahalanobis dist. with stratified cov.

75

56

BMC [17]

ResNet-152 and random forest

37

40

UTAOS [18]

Gen.
Gen.
Gen.
Gen.
Gen.

82
80
83
83
81

73
70
74
74
73

DFKI [19]

VGG13-FCN with RGB data
VGG13-FCN with RGB and NIR data
VGG13 adapted to be a DeconvNet

73
84
84

69
70
74

Dilated 25 × 25
Dilated 50 × 50
Location ConvNets
Fusion-SVM
Fusion-MV

Dilated ConvNet #1 (25 × 25 patches)
Dilated ConvNet #1 (50 × 50 patches)
Dilated ConvNet #1 trained per location
SVM over concatenated predictions
MV over concatenated predictions

87
86
87
88
78

82
80
84
84
49

Baselines

Proposed

4

New Locations

Adv.
Adv.
Adv.
Adv.
Adv.

Net.
Net.
Net.
Net.
Net.

with
with
with
with
with

0.78
0.94
0.50
0.35
0.12

threshold
threshold
threshold
threshold
threshold

Conclusion

In this paper, we propose new approaches based on Convolutional Neural Networks to perform detection of flooding areas in remote sensing images. Specifically, we proposed four distinct architectures
based on dilated convolutions [13] and deconvolution layers [14]. Furthermore, different strategies to
combine such networks were proposed and evaluated.
Experimental results have showed that the methods are effective and robust. We have achieved
state-of-the-art performance, in terms of Jaccard Index, in a specific dataset proposed for the FloodDetection in Satellite Images subtask of the 2017 Multimedia Satellite Task. The proposed methods
outperformed all baselines, winning that subtask challenge. Such results show that our proposed
approaches are effective and robust to identify flooding areas (independent if it is for a recurrent or
atypical event). This identification process performed by our proposed algorithms may help authorities
to keep focus on most vulnerable regions while monitoring forecast inundations, which may aid in
coordinate rescues, and help victims.
As future work, we intend to use different post-processing methods, such as Conditional Random
Fields, in order to exploit the contextual information.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank FAPESP (grants #2013/50169-1, #2013/50155-0, #2014/50715-9, #2014/122361, and #2016/18429-1), FAPEMIG, CNPq, and CAPES.

References
[1] NOAA/NWS (National Weather Service), Floods: The awesome power (2005).
[2] CRED, Centre for research on the epidemiology of disasters (cred) (2017).
URL http://www.emdat.be/

8

[3] T. De Groeve, Flood monitoring and mapping using passive microwave remote sensing in namibia,
Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk 1 (1) (2010) 19–35.
[4] B. P. Harman, S. Heyenga, B. M. Taylor, C. S. Fletcher, Global lessons for adapting coastal
communities to protect against storm surge inundation, Journal of Coastal Research 31 (4) (2013)
790–801.
[5] C. Eric Levenson, 3 storms, 3 responses: Comparing harvey, irma and maria (2017).
URL http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/26/us/response-harvey-irma-maria/index.html
[6] V. Klemas, Remote sensing of floods and flood-prone areas: an overview, Journal of Coastal
Research 31 (4) (2014) 1005–1013.
[7] L. Pulvirenti, N. Pierdicca, G. Boni, M. Fiorini, R. Rudari, Flood damage assessment through
multitemporal cosmo-skymed data and hydrodynamic models: The albania 2010 case study,
JSTARS 7 (7) (2014) 2848–2855.
[8] A. D’Addabbo, A. Refice, G. Pasquariello, F. P. Lovergine, D. Capolongo, S. Manfreda, A
bayesian network for flood detection combining sar imagery and ancillary data, TGRS 54 (6)
(2016) 3612–3625.
[9] B. Bischke, P. Helber, C. Schulze, S. Venkat, A. Dengel, D. Borth, The multimedia satellite task
at mediaeval 2017: Emergence response for flooding events, in: Proc. of the MediaEval 2017
Workshop, Dublin, Ireland.
[10] I. Goodfellow, Y. Bengio, A. Courville, Deep Learning, MIT Press, 2016.
[11] K. Nogueira, W. O. Miranda, J. A. Dos Santos, Improving spatial feature representation from
aerial scenes by using convolutional networks, in: Conference on Graphics, Patterns and Images
(SIBGRAPI), IEEE, 2015, pp. 289–296.
[12] K. Nogueira, O. A. Penatti, J. A. dos Santos, Towards better exploiting convolutional neural
networks for remote sensing scene classification, Pattern Recognition 61 (2017) 539–556.
[13] F. Yu, V. Koltun, Multi-scale context aggregation by dilated convolutions, in: ICLR, 2016.
[14] V. Badrinarayanan, A. Kendall, R. Cipolla, Segnet: A deep convolutional encoder-decoder architecture for image segmentation, arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.00561.
[15] N. Tkachenko, A. Zubiaga, R. Procter, Wisc at mediaeval 2017: Multimedia satellite task, in:
Working Notes Proc. MediaEval Workshop, 2017, p. 2.
URL http://slim-sig.irisa.fr/me17/Mediaeval_2017_paper_12.pdf
[16] K. Avgerinakis, A. Moumtzidou, S. Andreadis, E. Michail, I. Gialampoukidis, S. Vrochidis,
I. Kompatsiaris, Visual and textual analysis of social media and satellite images for flood detection @ multimedia satellite task mediaeval 2017, in: Working Notes Proc. MediaEval Workshop,
2017, p. 2.
URL http://slim-sig.irisa.fr/me17/Mediaeval_2017_paper_31.pdf
[17] X. Fu, Y. Bin, L. Peng, J. Z. Y. Yang, H. T. Shen, Bmc@mediaeval 2017 multimedia satellite
task via regression random forest, in: Working Notes Proc. MediaEval Workshop, 2017, p. 2.
URL http://slim-sig.irisa.fr/me17/Mediaeval_2017_paper_46.pdf
[18] K. Ahmad, P. Konstantin, M. Riegler, N. Conci, P. Holversen, Cnn and gan based satellite and
social media data fusion for disaster detection, in: Working Notes Proc. MediaEval Workshop,
2017, p. 2.
URL http://slim-sig.irisa.fr/me17/Mediaeval_2017_paper_15.pdf

9

[19] B. Bischke, P. Bhardwaj, A. Gautam, P. Helber, D. Borth, A. Dengel, Detection of flooding
events in social multimedia and satellite imagery using deep neural networks, in: Working Notes
Proc. MediaEval Workshop, 2017, p. 2.
URL http://slim-sig.irisa.fr/me17/Mediaeval_2017_paper_51.pdf

10

(a) Location 1

(b) Location 2

(c) Location 3

(d) Location 4

(e) Location 5

(f) Location 6

(g) New Location

Figure 5: Examples of some test images and the obtained results achieved by using SVM with the
aggregated probabilities. White areas refer to flooded regions and black areas correspond to background.

11

