GeoSense-AI: Fast Location Inference from Crisis Microblogs

Determining the geolocation of extreme climate events and disasters in texts is a common problem in climate impact and adaptation research. Named-entity recognition (NER) tools are typically used to identify a pool of toponyms that serve as candidate event locations. In this study, we conduct a comparative analysis of three off-the-shelf NER tools, namely Flair, Spacy and Stanza. We describe and quantify differences between their outputs for German news articles and evaluate them extrinsically based on three methods to determine the country where events took place. We show how their contrasts are propagated into downstream tasks and can yield distinct decisions about a document's geographical focus, which, in turn, can impact conclusions about countries' prominence in German media.

Social media imagery (SMI) provides timely and fine-grained ground perspectives that are valuable for situational awareness and emergency response. Unlike satellite or aerial imagery, SMI can capture disaster impacts and ground-level conditions in a timely manner. However, geographic references in SMI are often vague or ambiguous, making accurate geolocalization challenging. To address this issue, we propose DisasterTD, a disaster toponym disambiguation framework that integrates multimodal large language model (MLLMs)-based semantic reasoning with cross-view geolocalization. First, MLLMs extract toponyms and generate candidate geolocations from noisy textual inputs. Then, cross-view matching between SMI, remote sensing imagery (RSI), and optionally street-view imagery (SVI) is used to verify and refine these candidate results. We evaluate DisasterTD on the Hurricane Harvey dataset, where SMI is augmented with collected RSI and SVI to construct a cross-view benchmark for disaster geolocalization. The dataset is divided into four categories based on toponym clarity and ambiguity, allowing a fine-grained performance analysis across scenarios. Results show that DisasterTD consistently outperforms MLLM-only and cross-view-only baselines without disambiguation, achieving geolocalization accuracies of 71.62% within 1000 m, 62.36% within 500 m, 57.99% within 250 m, 52.09% within 100 m, and 47.01% within 50 m, while reducing the mean and median errors to 11.33 km and 0.68 km, respectively. The largest improvements appear in ambiguous toponyms, where semantic reasoning with cross-view evidence reduces candidate dispersion and errors. These findings demonstrate the effectiveness of integrating MLLM-based candidate generation with cross-view verification for fine-grained disaster geolocalization.

Remote-sensing vision-language models (RS-VLMs) have advanced Earth-observation analysis toward visual interpretation and instruction-following, yet fall short of operational geo-intelligence, which demands tool-grounded spatial reasoning and structured, evidence-backed decisions. We introduce GeoDisaster, an operational geospatial disaster reasoning benchmark with 2,921 verified instances across 43 question types and five task families: deforestation monitoring, multi-hazard analysis, building-damage assessment, flood-safe routing, and Sentinel-1 SAR flood monitoring. Instances integrate heterogeneous EO/GIS evidence-optical and SAR imagery, raster masks, vector geometries, road networks, and exposure layers-spanning hazard detection, damage assessment, exposure estimation, and diagnostic report generation. Ground-truth answers are grounded in executable geospatial workflows and deterministic consistency checks, removing the need for language-model annotation. We further propose an orchestrated multi-agent framework with 18 disaster-oriented tools, where role-specialized agents coordinate through explicit execution contracts, aligned via Role-Contract Expectation Alignment (RCEA): failure-aware supervised fine-tuning combined with contract-grounded reinforcement learning over dense step-level signals. Experiments show that GeoDisaster challenges existing RS-VLMs and agentic systems, while RCEA improves tool use, evidence grounding, state consistency, and decision generation.