DisasterTD: Disaster Toponym Disambiguation Using Multimodal LLMs and Cross-View 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.

Due to the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme climate events, there is a clear demand for intelligent, scalable, and autonomous approaches to disaster damage assessment. Existing methods, largely based on supervised learning and task-specific fine-tuning, struggle to generalize under domain shifts, long-tailed data distributions, and heterogeneous geospatial data sources, especially in disaster scenarios. They also often lack the ability to integrate and reason across multimodal geospatial information, such as satellite images and street-view images. In this paper, we introduce RAPID, a reproducible multi-agent pipeline for interpretable disaster damage assessment, including damage-level assessment, damage-type interpretation, and actionable suggestions for response, remediation, and recovery. RAPID coordinates specialized agents to perform cross-view understanding, image restoration, structured damage recognition, and geographical reasoning across heterogeneous data modalities. Without task-specific fine-tuning, RAPID supports zero-shot damage assessment by jointly using complementary information from remote sensing and ground-level perspectives. The system produces fine-grained, interpretable assessments and automatically generates location-specific, decision-relevant disaster reports to support early-stage emergency response. We evaluate RAPID across hurricanes, floods, wildfires, and earthquakes using multiple cross-view imagery inputs, including pre- and post-disaster street-view images, post-disaster remote sensing imagery, and street-view image pairs. Experiments show that RAPID achieves 0.92 overall accuracy for multi-disaster type classification and up to 0.627 for cross-view damage severity prediction, highlighting its potential as a foundational framework for autonomous disaster intelligence.

Analyzing street-view imagery with computer vision models offers a promising approach for rapid, hyperlocal disaster damage assessment, but existing approaches typically rely on black-box pre-trained vision models, which lack interpretability and reliability. This study proposes DamageArbiter, a multimodal disagreement-driven arbitration framework designed to improve the accuracy and reliability of street-view-based damage assessment. DamageArbiter leverages the complementary strengths of unimodal and multimodal models and employs a lightweight logistic regression meta-classifier to arbitrate cases in which model predictions disagree. Using 2,556 post-disaster street-view images, paired with manually generated or large language model (LLM)-generated text descriptions, we systematically compared DamageArbiter with fine-tuned unimodal (image-only and text-only) models and CLIP-based multimodal models in terms of classification performance and overconfidence errors. Results show that DamageArbiter improved accuracy to 75.85% and the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) to 0.6188, compared with the best-performing text-only baseline (63.07% accuracy, 0.4126 MCC), image-only baseline (74.33% accuracy, 0.5947 MCC), and CLIP baseline (74.22% accuracy, 0.5915 MCC). The overconfidence analysis further reveals that DamageArbiter substantially reduced the overconfidence error from 70.58% for the best-performing baseline, the image-only ViT model, to 16.45%. Overall, this study demonstrates that accuracy alone is insufficient for evaluating disaster damage classification models and highlights the importance of measuring overconfidence errors as part of model reliability assessment. DamageArbiter thus offers a more reliable framework for rapid, hyperlocal disaster damage assessment from street-view imagery.