A novel framework for addressing uncertainties in machine learning-based geospatial approaches for flood prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globally, many studies on machine learning (ML)-based flood susceptibility modeling have been carried out in recent years. While majority of those models produce reasonably accurate flood predictions, the outcomes are subject to uncertainty since flood susceptibility models (FSMs) may produce varying spatial predictions. However, there have not been many attempts to address these uncertainties because identifying spatial agreement in flood projections is a complex process. This study presents a framework for reducing spatial disagreement among four standalone and hybridized ML-based FSMs: random forest (RF), k-nearest neighbor (KNN), multilayer perceptron (MLP), and hybridized genetic algorithm-gaussian radial basis function-support vector regression (GA-RBF-SVR). Besides, an optimized model was developed combining the outcomes of those four models. The southwest coastal region of Bangladesh was selected as the case area. A comparable percentage of flood potential area (approximately 60% of the total land areas) was produced by all ML-based models. Despite achieving high prediction accuracy, spatial discrepancy in the model outcomes was observed, with pixel-wise correlation coefficients across different models ranging from 0.62 to 0.91. The optimized model exhibited high prediction accuracy and improved spatial agreement by reducing the number of classification errors. The framework presented in this study might aid in the formulation of risk-based development plans and enhancement of current early warning systems.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".