Uncertainty in three dimensions: the challenges of communicating probabilistic flood forecasts maps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Real time operational flood forecasting most often concentrates on issuing streamflow predictions at specific points along the rivers of a watershed. Those points often coincide with gauging stations, and the forecasts can eventually be compared with the corresponding observations for post-event analysis. We are now witnessing an increasing number of studies aimed at also including flood mapping as part of the forecasting system, by feeding the forecasted streamflow to a hydraulics model. While this additional new information (flood extent, depth, velocity, etc.) can potentially be useful for decision makers, it also has the potential to be overwhelming. This is especially true for probabilistic and ensemble forecasting systems. While ensemble streamflow forecasts for a given point in space can be visualized relatively easily, the visualization and communication of probabilistic forecasts for water depth and extent brings additional challenges. The uncertainty becomes three dimensional and it becomes difficult to convey all the important information to support decision-making, while a confusion that could arise from too much information, counter-intuitive interpretation, or simply too much complexity in the representation of the forecast. In this paper, we synthesize the results of a large-scale survey across multiple categories of users of hydrological forecasts (28 government representatives, 52 municipalities, 9 organizations, 37 citizens and farmers, for a total of 139 persons) regarding their preferences in terms of visualizing probabilistic flood forecasts over an entire river reach. Those users have different roles and realities, which influence their needs and preferences. The survey was performed through individual and group interviews during which the interviewees were asked about their needs in terms of hydrological forecasting and their preferences in terms of communication and visualization of the information. In particular, we presented the interviewees with four prototypes representing alternative visualizations of the same probabilistic forecast in order to understand their preferences in terms of colour maps, wording, and the representation of uncertainty. Our results highlight several issues related to the understanding of probabilities in the specific context of visualizing forecasted flood maps. We propose several suggestions for visualizing probabilistic flood maps in order to convey all the relevant information while limiting the confusion of decision makers, and also describe several potential adaptations for different categories of end users.
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 | 0.018 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".