Brodersen, K. H., Ong, C. S., Stephan, K. E., and Buhmann, J. M.: The balanced accuracy and its posterior distribution, in: International Conference on Pattern Recognition, 23–26 August 2010, Istanbul, Turkey, IEEE, 3121–3124,
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPR.2010.764, 2010.
a
Buendía Sánchez, L. M. and Angulo, E. R.: Análisis de los daños en viviendas y edificios comerciales durante la ocurrencia del sismo del 19 de septiembre de 2017, Revista de Ingeniería
Sísmica No, 101, 19–35,
https://doi.org/10.18867/ris.101.508, 2017.
a,
b
Capella Space: SAR Imagery Products,
https://www.capellaspace.com/data/sar-imagery-products/, last access: 30 December 2022. a
Cotrufo, S., Sandu, C., Giulio Tonolo, F., and Boccardo, P.: Building damage assessment scale tailored to remote sensing vertical imagery, Eur. J. Remote Sens., 51, 991–1005,
https://doi.org/10.1080/22797254.2018.1527662, 2018.
a
Dell'Acqua, F. and Gamba, P.: Remote sensing and earthquake damage assessment: Experiences, limits, and perspectives, P. IEEE, 100,
2876–2890,
https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2012.2196404, 2012.
a,
b
Esri: Enhanced Damage Assessment Solution Improves Collaboration,
https://www.esri.com/arcgis-blog/products/arcgis-solutions/local-government/enhanced-damage-assessment-solution-released/ (last access: 30 December 2022), 2021. a
European Sesimological Commission: European Macroseismic Scale 1998 (EMS-98), Tech. rep., Centre Europèen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie,
Luxembourg, ISBN 2-87977-008-4, 1998. a
Federal Emergency Management Agency: FEMA-4473-DR. Preliminary Damage Assessment Report, Puerto Rico Earthquakes, Tech. rep., Federal Emergency Management Agency,
https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/FEMA4473DRPR.pdf (last access: 30 December 2022), 2020. a
FEMA and ASCE: FEMA 356: Prestandard and commentary for the seismic
rehabilitation of buildings, Tech. rep., Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Washington, DC, ISBN 978-1484027554, 2000. a
Feng, Y., Zhou, M., and Tong, X.: Imbalanced classification: A paradigm-based review, Stat. Anal. Data Min., 14, 383–406,
https://doi.org/10.1002/sam.11538, 2021.
a
Ge, P., Gokon, H., and Meguro, K.: Building Damage Assessment Using Intensity SAR Data with Different Incidence Angles and Longtime Interval, Journal of Disaster Research, 14, 456–465,
https://doi.org/10.20965/JDR.2019.P0456, 2019.
a
Ge, P., Gokon, H., and Meguro, K.: A review on synthetic aperture radar-based building damage assessment in disasters, Remote Sens. Environ., 240, 111693,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2020.111693, 2020.
a,
b
Gholamy, A., Kreinovich, V., and Kosheleva, O.: Why 70/30 or 80/20 Relation Between Training and Testing Sets: A Pedagogical Explanation, Departmental Technical Reports (CS), Department of Computer Science, The University of Texas at El Paso, 1–6,
https://scholarworks.utep.edu/cs_techrep/1209/ (last access: 30 December 2022), 2018. a
Government of Croatia: Croatia earthquake: Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment, Tech. rep., Government of Croatia, Zagreb, Croatia,
https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/311901608097332728/pdf/Croatia-Earthquake-Rapid-Damage-and-Needs-Assessment-2020.pdf (last access: 15 February 2023), 2020. a
ICEYE: A Revolution in Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Data Earth Observation,
https://www.iceye.com/hubfs/Downloadables/SAR_Data_Brochure_ICEYE.pdf, last access: 30 December 2022. a
Ji, M., Liu, L., and Buchroithner, M. F.: Identifying collapsed buildings using post-earthquake satellite imagery and convolutional neural networks: A
case study of the 2010 Haiti Earthquake, Remote Sens., 10, 1689,
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10111689, 2018.
a
Ji, M., Liu, L., Du, R., and Buchroithner, M. F.: A comparative study of
texture and convolutional neural network features for detecting collapsed
buildings after earthquakes using pre- and post-event satellite imagery,
Remote Sens., 11, 1202,
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11101202, 2019.
a
Ji, M., Liu, L., Zhang, R., and Buchroithner, M. F.: Discrimination of
Earthquake-Induced Building Destruction from Space Using a Pretrained CNN
Model, Appl. Sci., 10, 602,
https://doi.org/10.3390/app10020602, 2020.
a
Jung, J., Kim, D. J., Lavalle, M., and Yun, S.-H.: Coherent Change Detection
Using InSAR Temporal Decorrelation Model: A Case Study for Volcanic Ash
Detection, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 54, 5765–5775,
https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2016.2572166, 2016.
a
Ke, G., Meng, Q., Finley, T., Wang, T., Chen, W., Ma, W., Ye, Q., and Liu,
T. Y.: LightGBM: A highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree, in:
Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 4–9 December 2017, Long Beach, California, USA, Neural Information Processing Systems Foundation, Inc. (NeurIPS), ISBN 9781510860964,
https://github.com/Microsoft/LightGBM (last access: 30 December 2022), 2017. a
Kellogg, K., Rosen, P., Barela, P., Hoffman, P., Edelstein, W., Standley, S.,
Dunn, C., Guerrero, A. M., Harinath, N., Shaffer, S., Baker, C., and
Xaypraseuth, P.: NASA-ISRO Synthetic Aperture Radar (NISAR) Mission, in:
IEEE Aerospace Conference, 7–14 March 2020, Big Sky, USA, IEEE,
https://doi.org/10.1109/AERO47225.2020.9172638, 2020.
a,
b
Krawczyk, B., Woźniak, M., and Schaefer, G.: Cost-sensitive decision tree ensembles for effective imbalanced classification, Appl. Soft Comput. J., 14, 554–562,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2013.08.014, 2014.
a
Lee, J., Xu, J. Z., Sohn, K., Lu, W., Berthelot, D., Gur, I., Khaitan, P., Ke-Wei, Huang, Koupparis, K., and Kowatsch, B.: Assessing Post-Disaster Damage from Satellite Imagery using Semi-Supervised Learning Techniques, in: NeurIPS 2020 Artificial Intelligence for Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster
Response Workshop, 6–12 December 2020, virtual, 1–10, arXiv [preprint],
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2011.14004, 24 November 2020.
a
Loos, S., Lallemant, D., Baker, J. W., McCaughey, J., Yun, S.-H., Budhathoki, N., Khan, F., and Singh, R.: G-DIF: A geospatial data integration framework
to rapidly estimate post-earthquake damage, Earthq. Spectra, 36,
1695–1718,
https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293020926190, 2020.
a
Mangalathu, S., Sun, H., Nweke, C. C., Yi, Z., and Burton, H. V.: Classifying Earthquake Damage to Buildings Using Machine Learning, Earthq. Spectra, 36, 183–208,
https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293019878137, 2020.
a,
b
Microsoft: Open dataset of machine extracted buildings in Uganda and Tanzania, GitHub,
https://github.com/microsoft/Uganda-Tanzania-Building-Footprints (last access: 30 December 2022), 2018a. a
Microsoft: Open dataset of machine extracted buildings in Uganda and Tanzania, Microsoft,
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/maps/building-footprints (last access: 30 December 2022), 2018b. a
Miura, H., Midorikawa, S., and Matsuoka, M.: Building damage assessment using high-resolution satellite SAR images of the 2010 Haiti earthquake, Earthq. Spectra, 32, 591–610,
https://doi.org/10.1193/033014EQS042M, 2016.
a
Motohka, T., Kankaku, Y., Miura, S., and Suzuki, S.: ALOS-4 L-Band SAR Observation Concept and Development Status, in: International Geoscience and
Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS), 26 September–2 October 2020, virtual, 3792–3794,
https://doi.org/10.1109/IGARSS39084.2020.9323701, 2020.
a
Moya, L., Mas, E., Adriano, B., Koshimura, S., Yamazaki, F., and Liu, W.: An integrated method to extract collapsed buildings from satellite imagery, hazard distribution and fragility curves, Int. J. Disast. Risk Re., 31, 1374–1384,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.03.034, 2018a.
a,
b
Moya, L., Perez, L. R., Mas, E., Adriano, B., Koshimura, S., and Yamazaki, F.: Novel unsupervised classification of collapsed buildings using satellite
imagery, hazard scenarios and fragility functions, Remote Sens., 10, 296,
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10020296, 2018b.
a,
b
Natsuaki, R., Nagai, H., Tomii, N., and Tadono, T.: Sensitivity and limitation in damage detection for individual buildings using InSAR coherence – A case study in 2016 Kumamoto earthquakes, Remote Sens., 10, 245,
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10020245, 2018.
a
Nex, F., Duarte, D., Tonolo, F. G., and Kerle, N.: Structural Building Damage Detection with Deep Learning: Assessment of a State-of-the-Art CNN in
Operational Conditions, Remote Sens., 11, 2765,
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11232765, 2019.
a,
b
Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J., Passos, A., Cournapeau, D., Brucher, M., Perrot, M., and Duchesnay, É.:
Machine Learning in Python, J. Mach. Learn. Res., 12, 2825–2830,
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-9902-9.ch008, 2011.
a
Plank, S.: Rapid damage assessment by means of multi-temporal SAR-A
comprehensive review and outlook to Sentinel-1, Remote Sens., 6,
4870–4906,
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs6064870, 2014.
a
Probst, P., Wright, M. N., and Boulesteix, A. L.: Hyperparameters and tuning strategies for random forest, WIRES Data Min. Knowl., 9, 1–15,
https://doi.org/10.1002/widm.1301, 2019.
a,
b
Reinoso, E., Quinde, P., Buendía, L., and Ramos, S.: Intensity and
damage statistics of the September 19, 2017 Mexico earthquake: Influence of
soft story and corner asymmetry on the damage reported during the
earthquake, Earthq. Spectra, 37, 1875–1899,
https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293020981981, 2021.
a,
b
Roeslin, S., Ma, Q., and García, H. J.: Damage assessment on buildings following the 19th September 2017 puebla, Mexico earthquake, Frontiers in Built Environment, 4, 1–18,
https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2018.00072, 2018.
a
Roeslin, S., Ma, Q., Juárez-Garcia, H., Gómez-Bernal, A., Wicker, J., and Wotherspoon, L.: A machine learning damage prediction model for the
2017 Puebla-Morelos, Mexico, earthquake, Earthq. Spectra, 36, 314–339,
https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293020936714, 2020.
a,
b
Sextos, A., De Risi, R., Pagliaroli, A., Foti, S., Passeri, F., Ausilio, E., Cairo, R., Capatti, M. C., Chiabrando, F., Chiaradonna, A., Dashti, S., De Silva, F., Dezi, F., Durante, M. G., Giallini, S., Lanzo, G., Sica, S., Simonelli, A. L., and Zimmaro, P.: Local site effects and incremental damage
of buildings during the 2016 Central Italy Earthquake sequence, Earthq.
Spectra, 34, 1639–1669,
https://doi.org/10.1193/100317EQS194M, 2018.
a
Silva, V., Kalakonas, P., Massabo, M., Bedrina, T., Campanella, P., Avagyan,
A., Bevington, J., and Farrier, D.: Improving Post-Disaster Damage Data
Collection to Inform Decision-Making Inception Report, Tech. rep., GEM
Foundation, Pavia, Italy, 2018.
a,
b
Sirko, W., Kashubin, S., Ritter, M., Annkah, A., Bouchareb, Y. S. E., Dauphin, Y., Keysers, D., Neumann, M., Cisse, M., and Quinn, J.: Continental-Scale Building Detection from High Resolution Satellite Imagery, arXiv [preprint],
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.12283, 26 July 2021.
a
Stephenson, O. L., Kohne, T., Zhan, E., Cahill, B. E., Yun, S.-H., Ross, Z. E., and Simons, M.: Deep Learning-Based Damage Mapping With InSAR Coherence Time Series, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 60, 1–17,
https://doi.org/10.1109/tgrs.2021.3084209, 2021.
a
Tilon, S., Nex, F., Kerle, N., and Vosselman, G.: Post-disaster building
damage detection from earth observation imagery using unsupervised and
transferable anomaly detecting generative adversarial networks, Remote
Sensi., 12, 1–27,
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12244193, 2020.
a
United Nations Development Programme: Guidance Note: Household and Building Damage Assessment (HBDA), UNDP,
https://data.undp.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/HBDA_Handbook_English-2.pdf (last access: 16 February 2023), 2021. a
University of Zagreb and The City of Zagreb: The Database of Post-Earthquake Building Usability Classification, Croatian Centre of Earthquake Engineering (HCPI – Hrvatski Centar Za Potresno Inženjerstvo), Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Zagreb and The City of Zagreb [data set],
https://www.hcpi.hr/rezultati-procjena-ostecenja-gradevina-nakon-potresa-31
(last access: 10 April 2021), 2020. a
U.S. Geological Survey: USGS ShakeMap for the 2015 Gorkha earthquake, ShakeMap – Earthquake Ground Motion and Shaking Intensity Maps: U.S. Geological Survey [data set],
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us20002926/shakemap/pga (last access: 15 February 2023), 2017a. a
U.S. Geological Survey: USGS ShakeMap for the 2017 Puebla earthquake, ShakeMap – Earthquake Ground Motion and Shaking Intensity Maps: U.S. Geological Survey [data set],
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us2000ar20/shakemap/pga (last access: 15 February 2023), 2017b. a
U.S. Geological Survey: USGS ShakeMap for the 2020 Puerto Rico earthquake, ShakeMap – Earthquake Ground Motion and Shaking Intensity Maps: U.S. Geological Survey [data set],
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us70006vll/shakemap/pga (last access: 15 February 2023), 2017c. a
U.S. Geological Survey: USGS ShakeMap for the 2020 Zagreb earthquake, ShakeMap – Earthquake Ground Motion and Shaking Intensity Maps: U.S. Geological Survey [data set],
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us70008dx7/shakemap/pga (last access: 15 February 2023), 2017d. a
Wald, D. J., Worden, C. B., Thompson, E. M., and Hearne, M. G.: ShakeMap
operations, policies, and procedures, Earthq. Spectra, 38, 756–777,
https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930211030298, 2022.
a
Wieland, M., Liu, W., and Yamazaki, F.: Learning change from Synthetic Aperture Radar images: Performance evaluation of a Support Vector Machine to
detect earthquake and tsunami-induced changes, Remote Sens., 8, 792,
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8100792, 2016.
a,
b
Xie, B., Xu, J., Jung, J., Yun, S.-H., Zeng, E., Brooks, E. M., Dolk, M., and
Narasimhalu, L.: Machine Learning on Satellite Radar Images to Estimate
Damages After Natural Disasters, in: 28th International Conference on
Advances in Geographic Information Systems, 3–6 November 2020, Seattle, WA, USA, edited by: Lu, C.-T., Wang, F.,
Trajcevski, G., Huang, Y., Newsam, S., and Xiong, L., 461–464,
Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, United States, Seattle,
Washington,
https://doi.org/10.1145/3397536.3422349, 2020.
a
Xu, H., Kinfu, K. A., LeVine, W., Panda, S., Dey, J., Ainsworth, M., Peng, Y.-C., Kusmanov, M., Engert, F., White, C. M., Vogelstein, J. T., and Priebe,
C. E.: When are Deep Networks really better than Decision Forests at small
sample sizes, and how?, arXiv [preprint],
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2108.13637, 31 August 2021.
a
Xu, J. Z., Lu, W., Li, Z., Khaitan, P., and Zaytseva, V.: Building Damage Detection in Satellite Imagery Using Convolutional Neural Networks, in: 33rd Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NeurIPS 2019, 10–14 December 2019, Vancouver, Canada, arXiv [preprint],
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1910.06444, 14 October 2019.
a
Yun, S.-H., Fielding, E., Webb, F., and Simons, M.: Damage Proxy Map From Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar Coherence, Patent Public Search,
https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/9207318 (last access: 15 February 2023), 2015. a
Yun, S.-H., Hudnut, K. W., Owen, S., Webb, F., Simons, M., Sacco, P., Gurrola, E., Manipon, G., Liang, C., Fielding, E., Milillo, P., Hua, H., and Coletta, A.: Rapid damage mapping for the 2015
Mw 7.8 Gorkha Earthquake Using synthetic aperture radar data from COSMO-SkyMed and ALOS-2 satellites, Seismol. Res. Lett., 86, 1549–1556,
https://doi.org/10.1785/0220150152,
2015c.
a
