Urban Flood Detection Using TerraSAR-X and SAR Simulated Reflectivity Maps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) imagery is a vital tool for flood mapping due to its capability to acquire images day and night in almost any weather and to penetrate through cloud cover. In rural areas, SAR backscatter intensity can be used to detect flooded areas accurately; however, the complexity of urban structures makes flood mapping in urban areas a challenging task. In this study, we examine the synergistic use of SAR simulated reflectivity maps and Polarimetric and Interferometric SAR (PolInSAR) features in the improvement of flood mapping in urban environments. We propose a machine learning model employing simulated and PolInSAR features derived from TerraSAR-X images along with five auxiliary features, namely elevation, slope, aspect, distance from the river, and land-use/land-cover that are well-known to contribute to flood mapping. A total of 2450 data points have been used to build and evaluate the model over four different areas with different vegetation and urban density. The results indicated that by using PolInSAR and SAR simulated reflectivity maps together with five auxiliary features, a classification overall accuracy of 93.1% in urban areas was obtained, representing a 9.6% improvement over using the five auxiliary features alone.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".