MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088327449 · doi:10.1109/access.2020.3025302

Flash Flood Detection From CYGNSS Data Using the RUSBoost Algorithm

2020· article· en· W3088327449 on OpenAlexafffund
Pedram Ghasemigoudarzi, Weimin Huang, Oscar De Silva, Qingyun Yan, Desmond Power

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsCentre For Cold Ocean Resources EngineeringMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsFlash floodSupport vector machineComputer scienceFeature selectionFlood mythData miningObservableArtificial intelligenceAncillary dataAlgorithmPattern recognition (psychology)Geography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score0.806

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207