DisasterRoute: Evidence-Guided Dual-System Routing for Visual Disaster Question Answering

When a disaster unfolds, responders must answer not only what is happening, but also why it is happening, what will happen next, and what to do now, often from noisy low-altitude UAV views and under tight on-site compute constraints. However, most existing multimodal benchmarks emphasize perception (e.g., recognition/description), cover limited disaster types, and provide insufficient support for the multi-stage reasoning required in practical emergency response. We introduce DisasterBench, a multi-stage multimodal reasoning benchmark for UAV-Based disaster response in complex environments. DisasterBench spans 14 disaster-related scene types and 9 response-critical tasks across pre-, during-, and post-disaster stages, with fine-grained disaster-task mappings that explicitly test causal attribution, propagation prediction, damage analysis, and decision-oriented reasoning. To enable reasoning on the edge, we further propose DisasterVL, a lightweight multimodal model optimized with a three-stage pipeline combining domain instruction tuning, chain-of-thought-guided multimodal alignment, and reinforcement learning-based policy optimization. Experiments across 21 popular MLLMs show that our 2B-parameter DisasterVL outperforms all evaluated open-source models and substantially narrows the gap to state-of-the-art closed-source models, achieving GPT-4o-comparable reasoning accuracy with superior efficiency. The project page is available at https://github.com/TanmouTT/DisasterBench.

Rapid and accurate situational awareness is essential for effective response during natural disasters, where delays in analysis can significantly hinder decision-making. Training task-specific models for post-disaster assessment is often time-consuming and computationally expensive, making such approaches impractical in time-critical scenarios. Consequently, pretrained multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have emerged as a promising alternative for post-disaster visual question answering (VQA), a task that aims to answer structured questions about visual scenes by jointly reasoning over images and text. While these models demonstrate strong multimodal reasoning capabilities, their responses can be sensitive to prompt formulation, which can limit their reliability in real-world disaster assessment scenarios. In this paper, we investigate whether structured reasoning strategies can improve the reliability of pretrained MLLMs for post-disaster VQA. Specifically, we explore multiple prompting paradigms in which one MLLM is used to generate task-specific instructions that serve as Chain-of-Thought (CoT) guidance for a second MLLM. These instructions are incorporated during answer generation with varying degrees of in-context learning (ICL), enabling the model to leverage both explicit reasoning guidance and contextual examples. We conduct our evaluation on the FloodNet dataset and compare these approaches against a zero-shot baseline. Our results demonstrate that integrating instruction-driven CoT reasoning consistently improves answer accuracy.

Vision--language models (VLMs) show promise for disaster-response remote sensing, but existing benchmarks mainly emphasize scene-level or damage-centric assessment. To study this building-centric gap, we introduce \method{}, a diagnostic benchmark built on xBD, a pre/post-disaster satellite dataset with building-level damage labels. \method{} enriches building instances with OpenStreetMap-derived functional labels and contains 134{,}108 task-specific instruction records across 15 task types, spanning instance-level assessment, scene-level counting, multi-instance reasoning, and structured report generation. The benchmark supports RGB pre/post-disaster imagery, single- and multi-view instance formulations, and scene-level RGB/SAR diagnostic inputs. Experiments with general-domain and remote-sensing VLMs show that models perform better on visible damage cues than on building-function understanding, multi-instance reasoning, counting, and grounded reporting. Instruction tuning improves performance on several tasks but does not close this building-centric gap.