Flood Mapping in a Complex Environment Using Bistatic TanDEM-X/TerraSAR-X InSAR Coherence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we assess the flood mapping capabilities of the X-band Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) imagery acquired by the bistatic pair TanDEM-X/TerraSAR-X (TDX/TSX). The main objective is to investigate the added value of the bistatic TDX/TSX Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) coherence in addition to the SAR backscatter in the context of inundation mapping. As a classifier, we consider a Random Forest (RF) classification scheme using TDX/TSX SAR intensities and their bistatic InSAR coherence to extract the flood extent map. To evaluate the classification results and as no “ground truth” was available at the SAR data acquisition time, we set up a LISFLOOD-FP hydraulic model for simulating the temporal evolution of the flood water. The flood map simulated by the model shows good performances with an Overall Accuracy (OA) of 97.92 % and a Critical Success Index (CSI) of 94 . 01 % . The SAR-derived flood map is then compared to the LISFLOOD-FP extent map simulated at the SAR data acquisition time. As a test case, we consider the flooding event of the Richelieu River that occurred in the Montérégie region of Quebec (Canada) from April to June 2011. Experimental results highlight the potential of the bistatic InSAR coherence for more accurate flood mapping in a complex landscape with urban and vegetation areas. The classification results of the SAR-derived flood map with respect to the LISFLOOD-FP flood map reach an OA of 78.65 % and a Precision of 82.08 % when integrating the bistatic InSAR coherence. These classification OA and Precision values are 69.63 % and 64.52 % , respectively, using only the TDX/TSX SAR intensity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".