Flash Flood Detection From CYGNSS Data Using the RUSBoost Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flash floods can cause massive damages because of their rapid evolution. To reduce or prevent harm caused by a flash flood, it is vital to have information about its formation and spread. Hence, providing real-time surveillance flood is essential. Considering Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma as two case studies, six different data preparation approaches (DPAs) for flood detection based on the Cyclone Global Navigation Satellite System (CYGNSS) data and the Random Under-Sampling Boosted (RUSBoost) classification algorithm are investigated in this article. Taking flood and land as two classes, flash flood detection is tackled as a binary classification problem. Eleven observables are extracted from the delay-Doppler maps (DDMs) for feature selection. These observables, alongside two features from an ancillary data, are considered in feature selection. All the combinations of these observables with and without ancillary data are fed into the classifier with 5-fold cross-validation one by one. Based on the test results, five observables with the ancillary data are selected as a suitable feature vector for flood detection here. Using the selected feature vector, six different DPAs are investigated and compared to find the best one for flash flood detection. Then, the performance of the proposed method is compared with that of a support vector machine (SVM) based classifier. For Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma, the selected method is able to detect 89.00% and 85.00% of flooded points, respectively, with a resolution of 500m × 500m, and the detection accuracy for non-flooded land points is 97.20% and 71.00%, respectively.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".