# Evaluating Zone-Guided Front Extraction for Glacier Calving-Front Delineation in SAR Imagery

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04066 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.04066/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 11 of its 18 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 2 Oct 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1505.04597/) (2015)
- [Encoder-Decoder with Atrous Separable Convolution for Semantic Image Segmentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.02611/) (2018)
- [SegFormer: Simple and Efficient Design for Semantic Segmentation with Transformers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2105.15203/) (2021)
- [Improving robustness against common corruptions by covariate shift adaptation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.16971/) (2020)
- [Evaluating Prediction-Time Batch Normalization for Robustness under Covariate Shift](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.10963/) (2020)
- [Glacier Calving Front Segmentation Using Attention U-Net](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.03247/) (2021)
- [AMD-HookNet for Glacier Front Segmentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.02744/) (2023)
- [Comparison Study: Glacier Calving Front Delineation in Synthetic Aperture Radar Images With Deep Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.05281/) (2025)
- [SSL4SAR: Self-Supervised Learning for Glacier Calving Front Extraction from SAR Imagery](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.01747/) (2025)
- [Multi-temporal Calving Front Segmentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.11560/) (2025)
- [AMD-HookNet++: Evolution of AMD-HookNet with Hybrid CNN-Transformer Feature Enhancement for Glacier Calving Front Segmentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.14639/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Automatic calving-front delineation from synthetic aperture radar imagery is challenging because the front is a thin and often ambiguous boundary between glacier ice, ocean, and surrounding rock or terrain. The CAlving Fronts and where to Find thEm (CaFFe) dataset provides both binary calving-front masks and broader semantic zone masks, making it possible to study whether zone-level supervision can support front recovery. In this paper, we compare direct front prediction with zone-guided front extraction using U-Net, DeepLabV3+, and SegFormer-B0 under the same bounding-box-cropped CaFFe setting. In the direct setting, models predict the binary calving-front mask. In the zone-guided setting, the model first predicts four semantic zone classes, and the front is then extracted from the predicted glacier-ocean boundary. We evaluate both zone-level and front-level performance, include a ground-truth-zone boundary check, and examine lightweight test-time adaptation on sensor-specific and glacier-specific subsets. The results show that zone labels contain useful front-boundary information: extracting the front from ground-truth zones gives the lowest mean distance error. However, fronts extracted from model-predicted zones remain weak, even when zone segmentation scores are moderate. Test-time adaptation also does not consistently improve zone-guided front recovery. These results indicate that zone segmentation performance should not be treated as a substitute for front-level evaluation and that effective use of zone labels may require boundary-aware training, label fusion, or explicit front supervision.