Comparison of U-Net and Attention U-Net for Binary Flood Segmentation from UAV Imagery

Authors

  • Fariida Aini Universitas Dian Nuswantoro
  • Muhammad Akrom Universitas Dian Nuswantoro
  • Gustina Alfa Universitas Dian Nuswantoro

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30871/jaic.v10i4.13263

Keywords:

Attention U-Net, Deep Learning, Flood Segmentation, Image Segmentation, UAV Imagery

Abstract

Flood disasters consistently cause massive damage every year, making rapid mapping of affected areas crucial for coordinating emergency aid. The use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) offers a practical solution to obtain high-resolution aerial imagery, but manually identifying flood areas from hundreds of images remains time-consuming. This study analyzes and compares two deep learning segmentation architectures, U-Net and Attention U-Net, for automatic flood area detection from UAV RGB images. Both models were trained using 290 image-mask pairs from a public dataset, with a split of 70% for training, 10% for validation, and 20% for testing. Images were processed at a resolution of 256×256 pixels, normalized to the range [0,1], and augmented with horizontal flipping, brightness adjustment, and affine transformations. Attention U-Net enhances the standard U-Net structure by adding attention gates to all skip connections in the decoder to suppress irrelevant background features. Both models were evaluated across five independent training runs using different random seeds to assess result robustness. Across these runs, Attention U-Net achieved a marginally higher mean IoU (77.11% ± 0.76) and Dice/F1 (87.07% ± 0.49) compared to the U-Net baseline (IoU: 76.97% ± 0.54; Dice/F1: 86.98% ± 0.34), but a paired t-test revealed that these differences were not statistically significant (IoU: p = 0.77; Dice/F1: p = 0.77). These results suggest that, on this dataset, attention gates do not provide a measurable advantage over the standard U-Net architecture, establishing both as comparable practical baselines for future flood mapping research.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] L. Hashemi-Beni and A. A. Gebrehiwot, “Flood extent mapping: An integrated method using deep learning and region growing using UAV optical data,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens., vol. 14, pp. 2127–2135, 2021.

[2] Y. J. Lee, H. G. Jung, and J. K. Suhr, “Semantic Segmentation Network Slimming and Edge Deployment for Real-Time Forest Fire or Flood Monitoring Systems Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,” Electronics, vol. 12, no. 23, p. 4795, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.3390/electronics12234795.

[3] O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, “U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2015, vol. 9351, N. Navab, J. Hornegger, W. M. Wells, and A. F. Frangi, Eds., in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9351. , Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2015, pp. 234–241. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-24574-4_28.

[4] O. Oktay et al., “Attention U-Net: Learning Where to Look for the Pancreas,” May 20, 2018, arXiv: arXiv:1804.03999. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1804.03999.

[5] M. Rahnemoonfar, T. Chowdhury, A. Sarkar, D. Varshney, M. Yari, and R. R. Murphy, “FloodNet: A High Resolution Aerial Imagery Dataset for Post Flood Scene Understanding,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 89644–89654, 2021, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3090981.

[6] R. K. Sinha, M. Kushwaha, J. Choudhary, D. P. Singh, and M. Pandey, “Flood image segmentation of uav aerial images using deep learning,” in 2024 IEEE International Students’ Conference on Electrical, Electronics and Computer Science (SCEECS), IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–6.

[7] M. Roohi, H. R. Ghafouri, and S. M. Ashrafi, “Advancing flood disaster management: leveraging deep learning and remote sensing technologies,” Acta Geophys., vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 557–575, 2025.

[8] N. Melavanki, S. Olekar, S. Biradar, and R. Ganiger, “End-to-End Flood Segmentation in Aerial Images Using U-Net Architecture,” in 2025 IEEE 4th International Conference for Advancement in Technology (ICONAT), IEEE, 2025, pp. 1–6.

[9] W. Li, J. Wu, H. Chen, Y. Wang, Y. Jia, and G. Gui, “Unet combined with attention mechanism method for extracting flood submerged range,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens., vol. 15, pp. 6588–6597, 2022.

[10] P. Sunil, S. Sinha, and R. Roy, “SegNet-ATT: cross-channel and spatial attention-enhanced u-net for semantic segmentation of flood affected areas,” in International Conference on Pattern Recognition, Springer, 2024, pp. 287–300.

[11] F. Safavi and M. Rahnemoonfar, “Comparative study of real-time semantic segmentation networks in aerial images during flooding events,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens., vol. 16, pp. 4–20, 2022.

[12] F. Karim, “Flood Area Segmentation.” Kaggle, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/faizalkarim/flood-area-segmentation

[13] S. Seong and J. Choi, “Semantic segmentation of urban buildings using a high-resolution network (HRNet) with channel and spatial attention gates,” Remote Sens., vol. 13, no. 16, p. 3087, 2021.

[14] M. Yeung, E. Sala, C.-B. Schönlieb, and L. Rundo, “Unified focal loss: Generalising dice and cross entropy-based losses to handle class imbalanced medical image segmentation,” Comput. Med. Imaging Graph., vol. 95, p. 102026, 2022.

[15] G. Simantiris and C. Panagiotakis, “Unsupervised color-based flood segmentation in UAV imagery,” Remote Sens., vol. 16, no. 12, p. 2126, 2024.

[16] A. Şener, G. Doğan, and B. Ergen, “A novel convolutional neural network model with hybrid attentional atrous convolution module for detecting the areas affected by the flood,” Earth Sci. Inform., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 193–209, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.1007/s12145-023-01155-9.

[17] R. Bentivoglio, E. Isufi, S. N. Jonkman, and R. Taormina, “Deep learning methods for flood mapping: a review of existing applications and future research directions,” Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., vol. 26, no. 16, pp. 4345–4378, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.5194/hess-26-4345-2022.

[18] D. Hernández, J. M. Cecilia, J.-C. Cano, and C. T. Calafate, “Flood Detection Using Real-Time Image Segmentation from Unmanned Aerial Vehicles on Edge-Computing Platform,” Remote Sens., vol. 14, no. 1, p. 223, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.3390/rs14010223.

[19] B. Ghosh, S. Garg, M. Motagh, and S. Martinis, “Automatic Flood Detection from Sentinel-1 Data Using a Nested UNet Model and a NASA Benchmark Dataset,” PFG – J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Geoinformation Sci., vol. 92, no. 1, pp. 1–18, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.1007/s41064-024-00275-1.

[20] A. M. R, R. Roy, S. S. Kulkarni, V. Soni, and A. Chittora, “Transformer-based Flood Scene Segmentation for Developing Countries,” Oct. 09, 2022, arXiv: arXiv:2210.04218. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2210.04218.

[21] A. A. Sundaresan and A. A. Solomon, “Post-disaster flooded region segmentation using DeepLabv3+ and unmanned aerial system imagery,” Nat. Hazards Res., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 363–371, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.nhres.2024.12.003.

Downloads

Published

2026-08-07

How to Cite

[1]
F. Aini, M. Akrom, and G. Alfa, “Comparison of U-Net and Attention U-Net for Binary Flood Segmentation from UAV Imagery”, JAIC, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 3132–3139, Aug. 2026.

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.