MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124254264 · doi:10.1002/hyp.14064

Machine learning for accelerating <scp>2D</scp> flood models: Potential and challenges

2021· article· en· W3124254264 on OpenAlexaff
Behzad Jamali, Ehsan Haghighat, Aleksandar Ignjatović, João P. Leitão, Ana Deletić

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Processes · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersAustralian Research Council
KeywordsComputer scienceGeneralizationArtificial neural networkMomentum (technical analysis)Applied mathematicsMathematical optimizationFlow (mathematics)AlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMathematicsMathematical analysisGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Two‐dimensional hydrodynamic models numerically solve full Shallow Water Equations (SWEs). Despite their high accuracy, these models have long simulation run times and therefore are of limited use for exploratory or real‐time flood predictions. We investigated the possibility of improving flood modelling speed using Machine Learning (ML). We propose a new method that replaces the computationally expensive parts of the hydrodynamic models with simple and efficient data‐driven approximations. Our hypothesis is that by integrating ML with physics‐based numerical methods, we can achieve improved generalization performance: that is, the trained model for one case study can be used in other studies without the need for new training. We tested two ML approaches: for the first, we integrated curve fitting, and, for the second, artificial neural networks (ANN) with a finite volume scheme to solve the local inertial approximation of the SWEs. The data‐driven models approximated the Momentum Equation, which explicitly solved the time derivative of flow rates. Water depths were then updated by applying a water balance equation. We also tested two different training datasets: the simulated dataset, generated from the results of hydrodynamic model, and the random dataset, generated by directly solving the momentum equation on randomly sampled input data. Various combinations of input features, for example, water slope and depth, were explored. The proposed models were trained in a small hypothetical case and tested in a different hypothetical and in two real case studies. Results showed that the curve‐fitting method can be implemented successfully, given sufficient training and input data. The ANN model trained with a random dataset was substantially more accurate than that of the model trained with the simulated dataset. However, it was not successful in the real case studies. The curve‐fitting method resulted in better generalization performance and increased the simulation speed of the local inertial model by 23%. Future research should test the performance of ML in terms of an increase in stable time step size and approximation of the full SWEs.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.566

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations25
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrological ProcessesSame topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207