Flood Hazard Risk Mapping Using a Pseudo Supervised Random Forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Devastating floods occur regularly around the world. Recently, machine learning models have been used for flood susceptibility mapping. However, even when these algorithms are provided with adequate ground truth training samples, they can fail to predict flood extends reliably. On the other hand, the height above nearest drainage (HAND) model can produce flood prediction maps with limited accuracy. The objective of this research is to produce an accurate and dynamic flood modeling technique to produce flood maps as a function of water level by combining the HAND model and machine learning. In this paper, the HAND model was utilized to generate a preliminary flood map; then, the predictions of the HAND model were used to produce pseudo training samples for a R.F. model. To improve the R.F. training stage, five of the most effective flood mapping conditioning factors are used, namely, Altitude, Slope, Aspect, Distance from River and Land use/cover map. In this approach, the R.F. model is trained to dynamically estimate the flood extent with the pseudo training points acquired from the HAND model. However, due to the limited accuracy of the HAND model, a random sample consensus (RANSAC) method was used to detect outliers. The accuracy of the proposed model for flood extent prediction, was tested on different flood events in the city of Fredericton, NB, Canada in 2014, 2016, 2018, 2019. Furthermore, to ensure that the proposed model can produce accurate flood maps in other areas as well, it was also tested on the 2019 flood in Gatineau, QC, Canada. Accuracy assessment metrics, such as overall accuracy, Cohen’s kappa coefficient, Matthews correlation coefficient, true positive rate (TPR), true negative rate (TNR), false positive rate (FPR) and false negative rate (FNR), were used to compare the predicted flood extent of the study areas, to the extent estimated by the HAND model and the extent imaged by Sentinel-2 and Landsat satellites. The results confirm that the proposed model can improve the flood extent prediction of the HAND model without using any ground truth training data.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".