Papers › Adversarial Robustness of Deep Learning Models for Inland Water Body Segmentation from...
Adversarial Robustness of Deep Learning Models for Inland Water Body Segmentation from SAR Images
Siddharth Kothari, Srinivasan Murali, Sankalp Kothari, Ujjwal Verma, Jaya Sreevalsan-Nair
Inland water body segmentation from Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) images is an important task needed for several applications, such as flood mapping. While SAR sensors capture data in all-weather conditions as high-resolution images, differentiating water and water-like surfaces from SAR images is not straightforward. Inland water bodies, such as large river basins, have complex geometry, which adds to the challenge of segmentation. U-Net is a widely used deep learning model for land-water segmentation of SAR images. In practice, manual annotation is often used to generate the corresponding water masks as ground truth. Manual annotation of the images is prone to label noise owing to data poisoning attacks, especially due to complex geometry. In this work, we simulate manual errors in the form of adversarial attacks on the U-Net model and study the robustness of the model to human errors in annotation. Our results indicate that U-Net can tolerate a certain level of corruption before its performance drops significantly. This finding highlights the crucial role that the quality of manual annotations plays in determining the effectiveness of the segmentation model. The code and the new dataset, along with adversarial examples for robust training, are publicly available. (GitHub link - https://github.com/GVCL/IWSeg-SAR-Poison.git)
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Methods
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections